DEFINITIONS
Evil as a Mere Lack: Evil isn’t real on its own; it’s just the absence or corruption of good—a weakness or flaw that depends on good to exist.
Evil as a Real Substance: Evil is an actual, independent force or power that can act on its own and influence the world directly.
MY ARGUMENT
Believers in God say he makes all and all is good and evil only happens for we take good and twist it. Evil is only abused good and is otherwise nothing, pathetic. In reality, there is just “not-good” and no such thing as evil as such. Yet, people of faith still use the word “evil.” That seems odd. Perhaps it is because saying non-good sounds too weak and seems to water down the horrors people bring on each other.
Anyway, religion—and belief in God—makes it clear that it is good that evil is merely a falling short, not a real substance
Good is good. That is the greatest good.
It is so good that evil is a pathetic defect. So that is included in this greatest good, part of what we mean by the greatest good.
To think that evil is more than just a lack of good, then, is considered evil itself! [Causing depression by drinking too much is the ultimate sin for then the evil and the suffering feel very substantial.]
On the positive side good is good. And on the negative side evil pays homage to good for it can do nothing unless it latches on to it. So both sides equally affirm good as good and as the greatest thing. Both affirm that failing to recognize good as the greatest good—and evil as nothing—is the greatest evil.
This is very doctrinal. This is very doctrinal and redefines an evil person as someone who lacks the “right” attitudes—a person considered worse than one who maims billions of children.
Religion would say, "Some try to make substantial evil. We all do on some level when we act badly. We want it to be more than just a lack, a parasite. We want it to be a force that can take care of itself so that it is worth liaising with."
If so then to attempt to make evil substantial is the worst sin. It is trying to destroy fundamental good.
If so then it is great evil to teach that evil is substantial like the Manicheans. Bad teaching influences people more than bad example does by the way.
Religion tries to have you make your evil substantial by telling you it will bring you to everlasting Hell and breed evil that will bring much pain on earth. It makes evil that is extremely bad even worse. Such doctrines turn morality into a necessary evil to be cursed not a celebratory thing! Those who adoringly rejoice in God as a sign or "embodiment" of morality are doing wrong.
How we see something impacts us for better or for worse. If evil is substantial then seeing it surely lets it put seeds in us. If we merely think it might be a substance but subscribe to the Christian view that it is not, seeing what we think might be a force will plant something. We will feel it can just go inside us uninvited as substances do. That fear will give rise to self-doubt and that will lead us to wrongdoing.
Ugly raw human or demonic evil has never repelled all who see it. It attracts some. They want to see it, they want it to happen for they are voyeurs of a particular kind. And seeing how terrible evil can get does not stop us doing tolerating and assisting socially accepted evil such as gossip and income tax fraud. Seeing it is inviting it in especially when we assume it may be a substance. We may say evil is not, still act as if we think it is. For us also, detecting it invites it in. The same things happen if we only think an evil has been done when it has not.
Evil is seen in some way as being like a curse, something occult. I am not saying people make that obvious. But they fear it like it was some miraculous or demonic reality. It might not be a story book spell but it is responded to as if it were. For that reason, seeing evil is like letting its dark magic in. Again seeing is sowing.
Even if evil is merely a lack, it is so effective at sowing that you wonder if it would even matter whether it were substantial or not.
If it does not matter, then why are we endorsing the God idea? Remember we cannot sustain God as good creator of all if evil is substantial? It is evil to say it matters. And irrelevant. And the religious waste their energy that could be used in the service of others instead.
Evil as substance can still be a lack, but it is not only that. It can use that to make you think it is another kind of lack. That means that if evil is a true dark force, a reality like electricity, it will want us to misunderstand it as, "Oh there is nothing really there. There is just a twisting of good. Evil is a waste for it is nothing. It cannot really last." It can use that to its advantage. It will bite hard. Illnesses only thrive when the person gets an inaccurate diagnosis. Evil deeds are like that too. Evil wants to make you overconfident that it is too stupid or empty to last long.
Whatever evil is, we see that it will try to act like a virus. You don't see it but you go too close and you catch it.
Conclusion
In sum, the religious view that evil is merely a lack of good preserves the ultimate goodness of creation and God, denying evil any true substance. Attempting to give evil real power—or “put meat on its bones”—is seen as a dangerous error that risks empowering what is fundamentally a defect. Whether evil is a mere absence or a dark force, misunderstanding its nature leads to confusion, fear, and wasted energy that could be better spent serving good. Recognizing evil as a dependent flaw keeps our focus on the supreme reality of good, which remains the greatest and most enduring truth.