People often get the doubt about the creation of bad in this world apart from good. The bad is related to the qualities of Rajas and Tamas. The good is related to the quality of Sattvam. Since God is the Creator and Maintainer of both good and bad, He is associated with both good and bad. This is clear when we say that Vishnu is associated with Sattvam, Brahma is associated with Rajas and Shiva is associated with Tamas. The doubt is that God should have been always in the form of Vishnu only. In fact, there is a sect called Vaishnavas, who follow this point. They treat God as Vishnu or Narayana only. In such case, God should not be the Creator of the entire world since bad is also a part of the world. This will limit God to the partial capacity of Creation. Even if you say that bad is the creation of souls, since God is the Creator of all the souls, the indirect responsibility of bad appears to God.
Otherwise, God should have made bad to disappear as soon as it is created by the souls. The maintenance of bad should not have been possible without the will of God, since will of God is the reason of everything in the Creation. The fundamental aspect of creation of this Universe by God is only entertainment as said in the Veda (Ekakinaramate…) and in the Brahma Sutras (Lokavattu…). The entertainment in single phase of good is always boring. When you eat a sweet dish continuously, you require the hot pickle also now and then to give a break in eating the sweet. This break or change gives you the reinforcement of taste to eat sweet again. In eating the meals, both dishes of sweet and hot are always maintained.
You may say that this necessity of break belongs to the lower human beings but not to the highest God. In such case, the entertainment is also related to lower human beings but not to highest God. If that is true, the scripture should not have told the requirement of entertainment for God. You cannot contradict the Scripture since its Author is God and this is explained by the 3rd Brahma Sutra (Sastrayonitvat). In the subject of unimaginable God, the unimaginable God alone can be the authority.
Creation of bad in this world
The bad is created for the sake of the souls only.
People often get the doubt about the creation of bad in this world apart from good. Let us come to the original point. Again, another doubt comes that the creation of bad directly or indirectly spoils the souls and hence, it is objectionable. This objection is also ruled out because the process of examination of the souls is essential for giving the divine fruit. Unless the attraction to bad exists, there is no meaning of examination. The teacher always advises the students to concentrate on studies without going to cinema. Those who concentrated on studies resisting that attraction are rewarded. You cannot say that all the cinema theaters in the city should be destroyed so that the disturbance of concentration can be avoided. The theatre exists in the city to give entertainment to the retired public. Therefore, the aspect of the entertainment of the retired public cannot contradict the aspect of concentration of students on studies. You should not bring the retired public and the students on one line.
Similarly, you should not bring God and souls on one line. Moreover, unless the theatre exists, there is no meaning in the aspect of concentration on studies resisting the side attractions. If the side attraction is absent, where is the concept of concentration and where is the concept of examination? Such situation leads to meaningless dormant inactivity and lack of spirit of competition, which again bores the students themselves. Then, the students themselves will raise objection. Hence, the bad is created for the sake of the souls only.
God derives the entertainment from both good and bad and such entertainment is not wrong since bad is not created primarily for the sake of such entertainment only. The entertainment is only secondary since the creation of bad was not done at all for His entertainment. You need not object such entertainment of God when it is not the primary purpose. You cannot say that the founder of a college is responsible for the suicide of a student on failing in the examination. You say that if the founder has not established the college, this incident should not have happened and therefore, the founder is criminal and should be punished!