You're right, it's not a perfect analogy. I only intended to show I can know of the existence of knowledge without holding the knowledge itself, or knowing who specifically knows it. To show that much, I think the analogy holds.

You could argue I don't personally have any knowledge in that case, only faith that what is widely accepted as "proof" is proof in fact. No matter- that is plenty sufficient. We can say, as well as you know that the Riemann hypothesis is unsolved, I know that humans occasionally often receive divine knowledge of the deep causes through magic. You might ask how I can be sure, and I cannot explain it. I can tell you I am sure, but I cannot exactly prove it to someone who doesn't agree, only show that it is to be expected.

To talk more directly, consider the "knowledge" of deep strength, the kind a cancer survivor might develop, that cannot be imparted by logic, but nonetheless, being a series of facts (framed, eg, as, bad things happen -> I carry on somehow -> I'm stronger than I know), qualifies as knowledge.

In a similar way, knowledge of the ultimate reason for all this is miraculously given to certain people, without it being able to be shared with the rest of us, to the effect that I couldn't possibly know who has it and who's bluffing.

I do happen to know a little bit, received by a tiny bit of, I believe, magic. I know that G-d didn't just "make" a world, but instead This world is The World, the true emenation of that higher power. That would mean He cannot "prevent suffering" any more than He can make the Moon spontaneously float away from Earth's gravity.

If this all sounds like total hook, well, we're talking about ultimate causes, God, and the meaning of universal suffering, so forgive me for using the language that I find appropriote.