c] Since god is an absolute with absolute power, there is no action beyond god's purview, except that limitation of being all-good. God cannot do evil.
Evil is a privation. Strictly speaking evil is not done, but is an imperfection of a good done. Buddhism implicitly supports this notion by favoring skillful actions over unskillful actions, and Nibbana as a goal over samsara with its dukkha. If you don't agree, then just wonder why Mara, the personification of those negative qualities, is just a conditioned being, whereas Nibbana, the perfect positive state, is unconditioned.
d] Since there can be "no creature without a Creator," all that is, is because god allows it to be, setting in motion its existence. Being absolute, with no limitation except being unable to do evil, god could also not allow something to be.
God is not limited in any way. If we accept the statement "being unable to do evil", then we are limiting him. In fact, the answer is that evil has not independent existence. People who attribute evil to God tend to believe that evil is something in itself. It is an absence, negation, defect, or privation. Again I point to the Buddha's teachings which implicitly support this is such notions as peace, light, good, skillful, goodwill, truth, harmlessness, etc. These are all goods, not defects or privations. You may see that they are considered goods because they comport with our being. These goods are desirable, and are in some manner a goal in themselves. Evils detract from good, and never are sought in themselves. Thy signify absence of being, form, or nature. That's why the Buddha takes as a starting position that all beings desire happiness.
e] The physical world is god's creation. Its handiwork is not only the blue sky and the majestic mountain, but also the TB bacillus, AIDS virus, the earthquake, and any other natural phenomenon one cares to point to.
Or they are past karma. Either way you need to justify their existence through faith, or just hard and cold materialism.
f] Since god is omniscient there can be no question that not only does god know the results of a process that god has absolute atemporal knowledge of and absolute control over, but what is, is because god wanted it to be as it is, and what is, is what is in what we call past, present and future, is fully known to god.
g] We can grant that god may have not created the TB bacillus or AIDS virus directly, but given omniscience and omnipotence, it is a necessary argument that god, setting into motion the processes of nature that would give rise to the TB bacillus and the AIDS virus, that god had full atemporal knowledge of AND control of the results of god's creation ("Whatever happens is His will”) --- the AIDS virus, the TB bacillus.
In theology there is a distinction between what God wills directly, and what God permits for some reason. Christianity teaches freewill. In that, such a choice as someone killing someone else is not directly willed by God, but is permitted in His creation because He wished this to be a moral universe, in which humans would be given freedom to shape their experiences. That's getting into faith, but we can see parallels in human relations, parents to children.
Evil has neither a formal not a final cause, and its material cause is accidental, that is, that what is willed always is a good and evil is only caused accidently. This is clear even in Buddhist teachings in which the Buddha says that all beings desire their happiness. Therefore evil is not a positive reality, but merely the recognition that creatures in their finity and potentiality are capable of failing to actualize their full measure of proper good. From this failure arises evil.
m] Since god's will is the Good, action contrary to god's will is absence of the Good, that which can be called evil.
This needed to be stated long ago in the alphabet, which I did.
n] The ability to choose -- the will not to choose the Good -- is god's creation.
The ability to choose is a creation, but as has already been stated, beings always choose a perceived good. The error is accidental.
r] Therefore: "God, as the Creator of all things ['Whatever happens
is His will'], is the creator of evil through man as His Instrument, as creator of man's will to do evil."
Doesn't follow. As we have stated, God permits evil, He does not will it. In the actions of humans, we will a perceived good, even if we error. An evil man wills an evil deed due to ignorance of the good. The Buddha supports this statement by laying ignorance of the Four Noble Truths as the root of suffering. Also the writer already supports that evil is an absence. How then can an absence be willed? What is will is a presence.
s] If I were to make a robot that was capable of making free choices and one of those choices was to kill, it would be hard not to hold me responsible for a death committed by that robot. If I knew without question that it would kill and I set it loose anyway, it would be no different from my killing directly, and there would be no way I could absolve myself from responsibility.
u] If humans' have free will, then god is not all-good, or god lacks omnipotence or omniscience. Or if god is omniscient and omnipotent, humans lack free will.
That's where this argument goes wrong. The free will is not free to do anything. That's called license. The freedom is the freedom of a free person, namely, the freedom of good. The freedom of release, the freedom of peace. The free will is free to choose the good. Again, an evil act is a choice for good, but it is just some other good in which an evil is accidentally willed. People are still responsible, just as they are responsible for "good intentions" which result is bad karma. A man who commits an objectively good or evil deed does it for his happiness. This is an absolute truth. The reason we can judge it is by the principle of the perfect good, perfect being. Any negation of that good and being is what is called evil. So this robot would be given wiring which allowed it to choose the good, but because of ignorance of the good could error. The rest is just a sequitur of the error in the concept of free will.
y] As r] states god is the creator of evil, which is in direct contradiction to the notion that god is all good. We have then a major incoherence: the evil creating nature of god and god being all good. God is a self-contradictory notion. And as we see in v] the notion of free will falls prey equally to the problematics of omniscience and omnipotence.
Underkying this whole argument is a misunderstanding of the concepts of good and free will.