If God created all the good things around us then it means he created all EVIL too

[Neo-Scholastic]

The concept of evil as "the lack of the good that ought to be there" is actually pre-Christian. Plato hints at is, but Aristotle developed it in his Nichomachean Ethics, Augustine popularized it. Today we call it virtue ethics. In order for it to work though you need to accept the notions of formal and final cause.* Formal cause is the notion that it means something to be human, more specifically, things that are essentially normative. Final cause is the notion that some things have desired ends, i.e. a purpose. An analogy might help. A dull, bent and rusty nail is a bad nail. It lacks all the essential features a nail ought to have: sharp, straight and fresh. A nail needs to have those features so it can do the job it is supposed to do. Nails have a right and proper use, fastening wood pieces together, not cleaning your ears. It should be obvious how these notions cannot be reconciled with modern atheistic naturalism. The atheist can list all kinds of facts about human beings, but that says nothing about the right and proper way to live, i.e. values. If there is no ultimate purpose to human life then there isn't anything we are supposed to do. If humans don't have essential natures then there are no general virtues for which they should strive.

In the first quote from you in this reply your argument relies heavily on what is "evident". In this argument you want to throw out what is "evident".

I’m not sure to what you refer. My only intention in the second post you quoted was to show the conceptual relationship between essences, purposes, and imperatives. I don’t see where I pointed to any specific common observation only that virtue ethics depend on specific premises. The first quote (from another thread) was merely to reveal an ambiguity in the use of the word evidence.

The Bible talks about sin as a "stain". Using the "lack of" example, how do I stain my shirt by applying a "lack of" wine? And the Bible clearly states that we need to be forgiven for sin. The narrative clearly lays out "sin" is an impurity which must be expunged through forgiveness. How do you expunge nothing? And using the impurity or imperfection narrative you can actually make a pretty damned compelling logical argument that "good" is actually the absence of "evil". Something which is pure, after all, is that to which no contaminants have been added. Something which is perfect is that which has no imperfections in it. And the Bible REPEATEDLY talks in this narrative, evil and sin being expressed, not as absences of good, but real, separate things.

That’s one interpretation of the texts using a straight-forward surface approach. That interpretation serves well enough as basic instruction for everyday living. You will find however that the most learned Christians, from the time of Origen on, approached the holy scriptures in a much more nuanced way.

As for your logical proofs, do you really think the further you go back in time, the smarter and wiser people get? You do realize the collective human race has had an intelligent thought or two since Aristotle and Plato, right? …All of these logical proofs you're digging up from hundreds of years ago, these people were not more learned, more intelligent or more wise than the great minds of the 20th century or today. In fact, in every case, they are less learned, less intelligent and less wise, without exception. You simply are not going to be able to dig up some great wisdom from the past which in any way trumps the wisdom of today.

No, I do not believe that people of the past were necessarily smarter or wiser than modern people. At the same time, it is the height of arrogance to believe modern humans have more mental capacity that the very first Homo sapiens. While modern Man may have better technology and more accurate understanding of Nature, someone only needs to read Seneca, Lao-Tzu, or Hillel the Elder, to realize that certain fundamentals of the human condition have not changed.

I'll take what Hawking knows over what Plato knew any time. Hawking knows everything Plato knew PLUS another 2,400 years of accumulated human knowledge.

YMMV I’ll take Homer over Hitchens, Kant over Dennett, and Cicero over Dawkins any day. A hundred years from now people will still study the former and the later flashes-in-the-pan will be long forgotten.