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 nor indemonstrability makes a fact any less so, just because of that fact; meaning, a 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 universe, the creator of the universe, i.e., “God,” is still ominbenevolent. This point, which is as defendable as it’s rationally coherent, is understood on the premise that certain (conscious, thinking, perceiving) creatures are created with the potentiality or power to internally realize either good or evil. Thus, all evil phenomena, if & when it ever be present in the universe, would be attributed back to the reality of such creatures, while the creator of them would be completely innocent of or unaccountable for any of it.