The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Skepsis]

You are equivocating "nothing" because you stated that it would be "evil" for God NOT to create a universe, or to be more accurate, to leave the universe in its evil state. You then said that "evil" is the cause of the reversion of material back to nothing.
You basically cited two different "nothing"s. The first is an almost true "nothing", in that only a God existed during said time.
The second is a practical "nothing", where there exists things other than God, but they have no definable attributes. Atoms are separated by trillions of miles in this "nothing".
So which is it? Which "nothing" is evil?
This is why I have a hard time following you sometimes.

This "all good" you make it into, is innacurate. If you can't get over that, then I guess you're whistling in the wind. If this makes your argument innefective to you, then you have to move on.

This makes the argument unnecessary. You conceded that an all-loving God does not exist. That is the point of the rhetoric employed.

God is perfect. Sure. But God is love; and God is a loving God. I don't know where you get "all loving" from that.

Guess it's my turn to get a hearty laugh from what you have to say.
So God is perfect. As an attribute, this translates to perfection on all fronts, including a moralistic one. You then concede that God is literally love, at least as a rule of a part of himself.
How the hell does this NOT translate to "all loving"?

Erm... which one did I make up?

"God is necessarily a creator"

I'm presenting you with a logical position > nothingness = evil, to help you to understand my POV.

Let me try one more time.

1. Nothing < this is before the begining
2. Something < the begining has happened.
3. Nothing < the end. Something was removed.

Perfect example of the equivocation of the word "nothing".
Before anything there was true nothing. After creation there is no longer a chance of there being "nothing" ever again, according to the laws of the universe which you tout as unchangeable (I guess, because every time I bring up the idea that universal laws could have been altered to fit life better and restrict suffering, you always say "no, because universal law dictates this suffering").

Now this is our (theoretical) universe.

+ your fallacy of equivocation.

It's all that it ever contained. 'Something' is good. Good because it is a positive.

Why is "something" good? Because it is positive. Why are positive things good? Because they are something. Why is "something" good? Because...
One of your premises needs to be validated before I take you seriously. The positive side of a AA isn't "good", and shouldn't rightly be thought to be so. It is what it is, not good nor evil unless specifically derived to be so. Adding a cup of acid to a dish and a cup of water to another, while both "positive" in the sense that they add to the nothing in the dish, aren't identical in content. This has been the argument, that a God had the capacity to filter the acid of this world into the nearly pure water of another.

What created it must've been good also. Because only a positive force could have spawned 'something'.

What created it must have been positive. You can't derive "good" from "positive" in the sense that you are using the two words.

Once positive is established, in 'something'. Then what detracts from something is negative. Negative = destruction = bad (for this reality, because the reality will cease to exist if the negative force causes 'something' to be 'nothing' again.

Your God wound up the universe and set it loose. He gave it a limited amount of energy. To give it this limited energy is to knowingly set it on a course for destruction. If the rules of the universe are such that the universe will dissipate eventually, then God is the cause of the dissipation.

Answer my questions.
What is the negative force, how does it operate, and is it necessary that it does so?

Not creating Something is nothing to consider. God could have created Nothing. Erm.... sure...

God could have witheld creation. This isn't the same as "creating nothing".

then please give a working example. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just need to be shown how. If you can't think of one, please just say.

Any world that follows Rhythm's rules for a ratchet and rancorous existence would do as a better model for a universe.
Better distribution of goods, better human nature, better resource management- things like that would drastically reduce sufferings.

God is creator. It's a pretty major attribute that is widely accepted in major religions, yes. I don't know why or how you find this surprising. God is an irresistable creative force, yes. It is in his nature to create, and therefore he creates. One of Gods strongest attributes is love. "God is love". Love boils down to the positive force.

Yes, creation is an integral part of God's nature.

I'll give you that, because I don't feel it's my place to tell you what God is and isn't.

Then that would be the natural logical progression in that reality. Gazillions of other permutations. So what? So you think that in one possible permutation no one dies? Quickly the food and water runs out. What permutation kicks in then to prevent death? Does everyone die happy by some coincidence?

I don't have to affirm any of that. My point was, God is a prick is he fails to create the best conceivable world. If there is even one improvement that can be conceived, then God has failed to be moral because it shows that he arbitrarily picked a world with more or less suffering that the "perfect" model.

Nature works because of the cycle that you seemingly despise and hold God to account for. I hold that this POV of yours is in fact the entertaining of a fantasy, which is unhealthy when this reality is perfectly beautiful as it is. Maybe that's my perspective kicking in. Factoring in a loving God, the world makes sense from a positive point of view.

Entertaining of a fantasy? That's rich, coming from a theist.
Why can't there be a world devoid of suffering? God can change the laws in any way he wants, allowing for a perfect world. Why not make that one?
In the context of your God, this reality is moral devoid of value and disgusting.
In the context of a physical universe devoid of the supernatural, this world is a beautiful and wonderful place, nearly full to the brim with wonder with the occasional side of suffering- however, for some it is a hell and for others still it wasn't even a glimpse of beauty.

How do you know that God doesn't care? Why should God care? What priorities should God have?
If God is good and loving, as in my construct; then what should he be doing differently to make this situation any better?

Easy. If he was good and loving, then this world wouldn't exist. That is what he would be doing.

Can you define your example more so that I can have more to get my teeth into? Would God have to prevent all death? How does that work?

Any sufferings would have to be eliminated, through any means necessary. That would make the universe pure.
I have a question for you that will solve any ills you may have.
Is heaven devoid of sufferings? Do people in heaven have free will?
If you answered yes to both, why no make the world like heaven?
If no, why not make a place like some believe heaven to be like?

I think to hold your POV, you have to see God as causing unjust death. Now God is the only perfect judge, knowing everything.

Remember, I don't believe there is a God at all. My POV doesn't include an unjust God or any God at all.
I know what you are saying, however.

If people commit murder, then that is people choosing to do bad things. Victims of murder are the victims of an unjust act.

God is not involved in peoples choices. People choose to be like God or not. They choose to be good or bad. The question is why.

God's judgement would find the child innocent and the murderer guilty. Justice is served.

Why did God have to let his creations have the ability to choose? why didn't he create humans with no choices.

Again, what is heaven like? Is there free will? Is there suffering?

God cannot create square circles.

I haven't voided a single logical premise anywhere with anything I said in your response.

Ok I see what you mean. Nothing then isn't evil. But the force back to nothing is. Destruction. decay... how are these not negative forces? Loosely, negative = nothing.

God isn't "leaving the universe in a state of evil" if he were to decide against creation.

Evil only existed after something was created. Nothing is exactly that. Nothing.

Evil is the sun block. Sun shines down on us until something gets in the way. Darkness isn't caused by the sun, but by the lack of sun. The sun shines on regardless. Likewise evil is the absence of God. Gods love carries on regardless.

Evil overpowers God, then? It keeps God from making contact in any meaningful way.
If evil only existed after creation... God created evil. Necessarily. By your own logic.

In my understanding, factoring in God, all things lead to him > we end up with a positive conclusion to everything. All souls are saved, all evil is defeated. Love wins.

Like a fairytale!
Eherm.
If everthing ends up peachy-keen, why not make it that way from the start?

Creating everything doesn't entail the creation of nothing. Because nothing didn't need creation to create it. Noting pre exists everything, unless you suggest the there never was a nothing in the first place.

"Creation of everything entails the decay of everything".
I never said it entails the creation of nothing in the sense you are using the word. You already conceded this point!!
Creation entails decay. God creates "nothing" (the decay of matter to an undefinable state) in this way.

Ugh, lol.

Satan is a negative force. I'm not into studying satan so I'm no expert. Same logic as above applies though.

God created the thing that destroys. God created the conditions and the crane for destruction and decay.

Hurt a guy why don't you!

No. You didn't address my point. My point is that meaningless is not inferred from what you said. If you could prove meaninglessness, then we'd have a start.

Holy crap. I am driving in circles.
God could have made this event NOT HAPPEN. The laws of the universe didn't NEED to be like they were. Therefore, God allowed this. Therefore, it is needless suffering.

Any model without unneeded suffering.

Easily said. Square circle in practice.

Once again, what of your heaven?