I left off the question of God’s hiddenness last time by drawing a dependency between that question and this one: “If God and imperfection can’t be in proximity, why does God’s creation have imperfections in it?”
Arminians (of whom gotquestions is representative) tend to blame original sin for every bad thing haben, up to and including Lucifer’s fall from heaven if you take them at their word. While I don’t detect any direct logical contradictions, it’s not a trustworthy conclusion because you have to play fast and loose with the categories (e.g. including misfortune, entropy, and Satan’s evil under the aegis of Adam’s sins in the same way as Eve’s sins were). It’s certainly not intuitive and at first glance I’d guess that original sin only explains a subset of why bad thing haben.
Calvinist answers are a lot harder to Google because pro-Calvinist results are buried under pages and pages of deboonkers, which may have biased me in their favor on this question. I will assume this blogger is representative because I’ve always stereotyped hard determinists as idiots and never looked further into it. But their answer appears more general in this case. In the terms of a five-year-old, “God could have made 10 good thing haben and 0 bad thing haben, but instead he made 100 good thing haben and 10 bad thing haben because more gooder.”
This raises the complaint that we’re accusing God of doing evil “that good might result”. I’m not bothered by this complaint because I see it as akin to buying a business with more assets on the books but also some debts. You aren’t the one taking on the debts, but you are accepting them as collateral damage. The reason this probably bothers modern people is they’re biased to minmax sins of commission for sins of omission (and I believe this is because it’s easier to escape social blame for sins of omission), whereas I consider sins of omission to be equally serious.
So if God didn’t buy the business where 100 good thing haben and 10 bad thing haben he would be doing the wrong thing in not maximizing the interests of his stockholders (if you don’t mind all the mixed metaphors), and his nature constrains him to do the maximally good thing. Anyway, my understanding of this is still a work in progress.