The goodness of God

I appreciate the references, but you only answered the second question – How does this fit with reality. But not the first-”
1. How do we know that God is good? (I assume that any empirical finding allows us to assume that God is bad but does a little good, as opposed to the other way around)”

I don't know of any very convincing arguments in favor of His goodness. I will present the main considerations here:
1. He and His prophets simply told us that He wants what is good for us (for our good all the days).
2. Beyond that, there is an assumption that the perfect must be good.
3. And beyond that, the creation of the world created some creatures just like that, and apparently He wants their existence. It doesn't seem that their existence is only used by Him for abuse, and therefore some have concluded that He wants to do them good.

4. Perhaps we should add His commandments and the rebukes of the prophets in His name, which usually (though not always) indicate a desire to do good.

Doesn't that undermine the basis of his work? Maybe he ordered me to kill Amalekites for no good purpose? Then I am obligated to a morality that he is also subject to.

If you conclude that He is not good, then there is a potential challenge to your commitment to Him (although some may say that His commandments are still valid because He created us and the world, or because of reward and punishment). But when there is no evidence, it does not mean that it is not true. Be impressed by what I wrote above – and come to your own conclusion.

Just another note. If he is not good, then morality is also invalid (see the fourth notebook, part three). Perhaps this is further evidence of his goodness, that he instilled in us a moral sense and commitment to him.

Sorry to jump into the discussion. I'm not clear on the answer that there is no better set of laws. That limits God (and why can't He create any system?). There is certainly no logical contradiction or anything illogical here: simply a set of laws without the possibility of natural disasters or diseases developing.

There is probably a logical limitation here that, due to its complexity, is not understandable to us.

Indeed, God is only prevented from making logical contradictions.
When He has already chosen to use a certain system, there may be restrictions that are logical by necessity of the definition of the system.
And in our case, God chose to govern the world according to fixed laws. If there are local interventions, then by definition they are no longer laws. A law by definition is blind to non-physical contexts (but utilitarian, moral, etc.).
If any iceberg melts, it is supposed to fall down, even if there is a poor person who will be killed by it.
The law of attraction is supposed to be blind to non-physical contexts, and therefore God had two options: 1. To create a world without rigid laws (= an iceberg that sees that there is a person under it, will not fall down), 2. To create a world with rigid laws (the iceberg does not notice anything beyond physics).
Since God chose a world with laws, it logically-conceptually requires that there will also be bad things.
That's how it seems to me.

You answered well.

Y, you are right that it is impossible to make a perfect world, and by necessity the laws can certainly have bad cases. But there are some things that are not a private case, but something big that is really part of the system. For example: the development of diseases (and why couldn't a world be created without the possibility of a cancer cell?). Or natural disasters (and why couldn't a world be created without hurricanes and tsunamis?). It would be possible to make tough natural laws without these and similar things.