Socrates thought that virtue and knowledge coincide; Kant, in his *Religion*, says:

>Man (even the most wicked) does not, under any maxim whatsoever, repudiate the moral law in the manner of a rebel (renouncing obedience to it). ... We are not, then, to call the depravity of human nature wickedness []  to adopt evil as evil into our maxim as our incentives (for that is diabolical)...

So would an all-knowing being be able to will so much evil? Per the above, no. But is it logically possible to *imagine* being subjected to evil forever? I suppose I can "visualize" it, like I can visualize myself (as I often do) submerged in a lake of fire, and I can stipulate, "And it goes on forever..." and that "forever" doesn't *seem* to logically contradict anything *per se*, does it? So to say:

1. X created the world.
2. X created the world to torment it.

Again, (2) doesn't seem "self-contradictory" compared to (1) (assuming that creating-a-world is a meaningful enough notion, of course), unless we think that having the power to create worlds requires a certain moral disposition beforehand. For example, if in an old way of thinking there is something "intrinsically good" about existence in general, then the will-to-create must participate in this intrinsic goodness, or so an evil being will not have the power of such creation. So though, "An evil being created the world," is not "directly self-contradictory," it is indirectly self-*defeating*, in a sense.

Perhaps that is far as this philosophical therapy could take you (accepting the abstract possibility of the world being created for an evil reason, but concluding also that you have no way of making the concepts involved precise enough to know if this apparent possibility is more than just 'logical' or if it also metaphysical/epistemic, etc.).