Don't mean to be rude, and jump in between your discussion, but I have a question pertinent to the question you ask at the start of your post here. Is the attainment by philosophy to such a goal, that of getting or basing itself beyond good and evil, according to you, done for any other purpose than its own good or benefit, and if so, like what ? Can't go beyond what there's no getting out of.

Reread my post, friend, I never said but expressly opposed the point God is to blame.

Neither ineffability or indemonstrability makes a fact any less so, just because of that fact; meaning, lack or absence of evidence isn’t equivalent with falsehood, the question of other minds/solipsism isn’t different.

Sure, of course, it can be maintained that despite if there be evil present in the creation, the creator of it, i.e., “God”, is still ominbenevolent. This point, which is as defendable as it’s rationally maintainable, is understandood on the premise that certain (conscious, thinking, perceiving) creatures are created with the potentiality or power to internally realize either or both good or evil. Thus, all evil phenomena, when, if it ever be present in the creation, would be attributed back to the reality of such creatures, while the creator of them would be completely innocent of or unaccountable for it.