A case against God.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
– Epicurus

Often theists like to brush off the burden of proof or to try place it onto those who simply don’t believe. Of course most people realise the absurdity of asking someone to disprove the existence of an item or being they don’t believe in.

We’ve all heard the argument that “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist” and it is technically correct, we can’t prove a deistic god doesn’t exist, in much the same way that we can’t prove an invisible unicorn doesn’t live on Pluto. To conclusively disprove a generic claim like a undefined god, or the invisible unicorn on Pluto, one would have to posses the ability to observe every part of the universe simultaneously. And that is obviously not an ability we have, so disproving generic claims is not possible. However this becomes a completely different situation when traits are attributed to the target of the claim, i.e. god, as most theists are want to do.

Once we begin to attribute traits to something, we then have something to start disproving. As humans we are the ones who define our language and therefore we define what these traits actually mean. And because they have definitions we can show if they could possibly apply to a god.

Several of the traits applied by believers to their particular version of a god disprove that god, or at least show that the existence of a god is extremely unlikely.


Many people will both claim that everything must have a creator and that God has always existed. These claims are in direct conflict with each other and if the first is true then God must have been created by something. However if it isn’t true, and God has always existed or came from nothing, this can be used to explain the existence of the universe in the same way it has been used to explain God. This doesn’t disprove a god, but it does make one unnecessary.


Strictly speaking the idea that a being could be truly omnipotent, in the way many people think of it, is flawed in so much as paradoxes(such as creating a rock so heavy even God can’t move it) make it impossible. However if we restrict omnipotent to meaning “possessing the most power logically possible” then theoretically an omnipotent god could exist, at least until it is attributed other traits.


Omniscience is something that can not truly exist, to know every piece of information that exists is impossible as if there may always exist a piece of information you don’t know about. And if you don’t know something, even if you’re not aware that you don’t know it, you are not truly omniscient.

The pain and suffering that occurs on a daily basis, not to mention the idea of hell, prove that if a god exists he is not omnibenevolent.

These are just a few of the traits often attributed to a god and they help to build quite a good case against the existence of that particular flavour of God. We may not be able to disprove a deistic god but we can say quite easily that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god certainly doesn’t exist.


2 responses to “A case against God.

  1. And the thing is, we are all reduced to tossing around this word salad because there’s no tangible evidence of a supreme being, and every phenomenon of nature that used to be attributed to a god has received a better explanation through the scientific method.

  2. Copied and shared this with my theist friend and this was his response: “What we are learning seems to prove that our logic is a limitation in itself. It is interesting, that such preposition is fundamentally misguided in that, many people like yourself and early scholars hadn’t studied in full the very existence which they have profoundly taken a bias stand on.

    1) Relativity (Omnipresence): Award winning mathematics have proven that reality is subject to perception, e.g Mirage. If the conditions are right, a mirage can be seen in any rotation, north, south, east, and west. As though the mirage itself exists in all areas. If you then move from position A to B position, B may also have a mirage suggesting that the mirage maybe seen at a distance yet exist even from the viewers position.

    Since everything is in a way, an energy form, we can thus effect mass in infinite possible ways but can only understand it or view it in a precise and finite manner. How can one understand the entire picture when they have a snap view of the composition? We are elements within existence as such we cannot actively escape the existence realm but relay things relative to where we are. LIMIT

    So then, how can we show there is a God when we are both within this limitation? We can’t, but God can reveal himself to us since he is not bound by the confines of existence. Hence an everlasting pursuit to seek his grace through prayer and worship that he may reveal himself to us.

    It was thanks to relativity again that we mathematically concluded a possibility of alternate universes. That, you can exist in a completely different planetary setting, within the same space and time frame. I remember closely how early on our chilhood days we would say, “dont point a knife at me, in heaven you have stabbed me” In an alternate universe you have killed me. Can’t we then suggest an alternate universe where there is a God?

    2) Quantum Mechanics (Omnipotence): A greater improvement to what would have been thought to be impossible, is that randomness is not mechanically ideal to create a molecular formation rather stability, as though creation was harmonious in a sense. The big bang as affectionately held by many scientist provides a clue to what may have occurred in the early stages of creation.

    However, when scientist replicate the big bang, they realize that;

    a) Equal amounts of anti-matter is created yet in our galaxy and those surrounding it; anti matter is relatively less. What happened to the anti-matter? If we are to conclude that
    1- it washed away to some anti-existence, then we are alluding to a possible cross-alternate universe. Thus, a universe that is alternating to the current universe but cross the alternative universe. Can our current logical precepts accommodate this phenomena? We cannot prove it does exist, so does it?
    2- that anti matter is there we just can’t see it: then how can we be sure it exists if we can’t see it? Isn’t God essentially view-less?

    In a quantum sense, the energy (power if you will) shared among elements of existence form a basic property of life. In fact, any existence is thus recognized by this property.

    3) Quantum Biology (Omniscient): Although fairly new, there is a growing attention towards a possible suggestion that biology may demonstrate quantum effects. Like how a pigeon can travel cross country and return to its nest, without a strong sense of smell or GPRS.

    The size of a pigeons head allows enough brain capacity to handle a few survival operations. How does it then know? Quantum Biology suggest that upon request, the body can use its limited resources to create a virtual system aligned to celestial bodies, gravity, magnetic fields, etc to generate whatever is required. In a sense, nothing is impossible if there is need to get it done. Hence FAITH. The believe in something, or the power to do something that hasn’t materialized yet.

    Neuroscience is by far the most obvious example of quantum biology. It has since been revealed that;

    1) Detaching the hemispheres of the brain does not affect ones logical, mental stability. We continue to be who we are as the remaining brain would easily hide away the fact that you cannot see one part of a symmetrical view as it simply mirrors the other side. How then does the brain know what to reveal and what not to reveal? Is that in itself reality?

    2) Neurotransmission is triggered regardless of fact or fiction. As far as the brain is concerned, the same neurons fire when we receive factual or fictitious information. Thus, everything is reality until proven otherwise. However, if a fictitious thing is then repeated over and over again, its provides enough firing channels to allow the brain to readily identify that as fact. These messages are relayed in chemicals in their subatomic nature. How do they have the ability to carry knowledge or lack thereof?

    Science would like to have us believe its absurdity only when it directs us to it. If we use the same logic to affirm our contention we are told but you said there is no such a thing in the first place. The burden of proof is a burden of disproof in our case. We can only attempt to disproof Gods existence as opposed to proofing he exists because all evidence is reliant on the very complexity of his nature.

    Some questions here surpass the strength of sound reasoning. In my view, Dogma has concentrated much on the spiritual sense of God and left out an entire practical field of God. Which has deceived so many people into thinking God is only within the spiritual realm. To normalize all I have put forward,

    God is the beginning and the end. Our discoveries can only lead us towards him. God is beyond existence itself, he is not the student, but the examiner with the question paper and answer sheet. If we are to truly disapprove his existence, the least we could try for ourselves is to question our authenticity first.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s