And absurdity leads to more absurdity.
Haroun El Poussah also says that he's good (and bored).
So basically your argument only exists because there is evidence of things that are not necessarily always "good". Therefore, you must jump to the flawed conclusion that everything including the bad must be "good", if the deity of your choice, who's existence is an apparent false premise, could be responsible or attributed for some things that not necessary "good".
Well, it's short, considering all of the endless apologetics in theodicy, attempting to "solve" the same problem to avoid facing that perhaps, "divine morality" is as subjective as human concepts of "divine morality" would be. The same for the infinitely various human concepts of "deity"...
In your life, you will be confronted to things that are not necessarily "good". You will either ignore them and not do anything to help, be helpless (perhaps still trying to convince yourself that it must be "good"), or try to do something, realizing that there's a problem. This will affect your wellbeing, the wellbeing of others and your lifespan.
It's even possible that you'll do something that's far from "good" to others while claiming that it's "good". It will still not make it "good", even if you pretend that you're "God" or acting "according to God" to justify it. What if your deity really exists and intervenes for doing evil in its name? It may not happen if it's an imaginary deity.
A very good reason to rely on better principles than "God wills it". Since law codes and ethics are of human origin, let's acknowledge that there are various standards, some being better. Then we can also acknowledge when something isn't "good" and try to improve things.
From what I've read from you, it's obvious that you attempt to justify injustice for an elite. Injustice is precisely, not "good". What does that reveal about you? What does it say about your particular, convenient "God" version?
