Final answer:
The question addresses the nature of moral evil versus good in relation to a supreme being's creation and whether intelligent beings possess more evil than good. Philosophical arguments suggest that evil may be a human concept that changes over time and that good likely predominates, especially from a divine perspective.
Step-by-step explanation:
The comparison between the skill or intelligence necessary to do an intrinsic good versus evil is a profound philosophical query rather than a matter of empirical investigation. The key questions here relate to the nature of moral evil and whether it can coexist with the idea of an All Powerful, All Knowing, and All Good deity. The philosophical stance, as proposed by Leibniz and others, suggests that what humans perceive as good or evil may be tied to a moral faculty that is influenced by millennia of social evolution.
The texts also debate the idea that the existence of evil does not necessarily outweigh the presence of good within intelligent creatures or the entire scope of creation by a supreme being. This train of thought leads to the objection that if there is indeed more evil than good in intelligent creatures, then the same proportion would be reflected in the whole work of God, which is considered improbable by these philosophical arguments.
Furthermore, the concept that moral evil can be reconfigured as a human creation, and that a better understanding of the deity and its creation could resolve the apparent contradiction, is an essential part of the philosophical inquiry into this complex topic. Thus, it suggests that evil as an abstract concept changes with time and place, much like societal norms and scientific models, and that there may be a greater preponderance of good in the universe, especially within the bounds of the divine or metaphysical realm.