This is a flawed analogy. Copying a smiling face is not the same thing as creating an object that is essentially good by its nature. You don’t seem to understand. Only God is good by nature. Anything outside of God is not good. God is identical to “Good”. He is not simply a being that chooses to do Good. He is goodness itself. Also, the act of existence is identical to good. Therefore how can we make rational sense of saying that creation is ontologically good without making the act of its existence identical to God. We can say that creation is not goodness itself, but then we are left with an act of existence that is not essentially good. We are then left with trying to make sense of how it is logically possible for an act of existence to exist without being identical to good. Good is ontological, it is not like a privation such as evil.
It cannot be objectively true to say that an object has a privation of good unless its existence is not essentially good. If it’s act of existence is not essentially or intrinsically good, then what is it? And if good is what it means to exist, then how can that which is not good exist?
