1.

Introduction
In this paper I will argue against the existence of a theistic god. I do this first by defining what God is
(theologically speaking), and then make a case against the plausibility that such a being exists. To do this
I will present two common arguments against Gods existence in support of my view: the Logical Problem
of Evil [LPE], and the Evidential Problem of Evil [EPE]. I will also formulate my own argument, the Modal
Argument from Contrariety [MAC]. I will look at relevant responses to these arguments where I think it to
be pertinent, and reply to them accordingly.
2. A Definition of God
First we must define what we mean by God. When we talk about God, or a god, there are many different
conceptions held by religions around the world and throughout history that we may be referring to: Vishnu,
Apollo, Odinthese and countless others are gods who at one time or another were believed to exist in
all manners of capacity (e.g. as the Supreme Being, a god of prophecies, a god of storms, etc.). To be clear,
when referring to God in this paper, I will be referring to the Judeo-Christian God of theism. We can further
define this god as a maximally perfect being [MPB], a being who possesses every perfection; omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. It is the plausibility of this gods existence that I will argue against. [1]
3. Why God Does Not Exist
There are many reasons I do not believe in the existence of a theistic Godchief among them, is the lack
of evidence. I do not believe in the existence of God much the same way that I do not believe that the
continents are actually giant turtles swimming in the ocean, or that one day towards the end of December, a
fellow named Santa Claus flies around the world in a sleigh led by reindeer, and delivers gifts to every good
girl and boy. I do not think that God, Santa Claus, or continent-sized turtles exist, because there is no good
reason to think they do, and all the evidence points to the conclusion that they dont.

Much of what we know about the world we owe to scientific discovery in various fields such as
physics, biology, geology, astronomy, etc. In the last 400 years or so that science has advanced, we have
discovered more about the world and where we fit in it than has ever previously been known. Science has
achieved this through empirical discovery, operating within theories and hypotheses that can be tested
and are falsifiable; that is, they can be shown to be false or untrue by testing their validity. Scientific study
has been extremely successful, and today we largely defer to science regarding what we know about the
universe. As such, the scientific method has permeated throughout almost every field of academics as being
a means to if not find, then arrive closer to, truth.[2] And so because the existence of God cannot be explicitly
disproved and has no supporting evidence, the claim that He exists is dubious at best. Conversely, the
evidence we do have makes a strong case against the existence of God.
4. Why Some Believe He Does
Now some, undoubtedly, will have cause to reject the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of
God. The evidence of Gods existence is all around us, theyll say. Life is so complex (a genuine claim) that
God is the only possible answer for its origin. Often theyll cite one holy book or another as proof of Gods
existence, or appeal to a personal feeling inside of themselves, which theyll contend with unshakable
certainty, proves God exists and that he is watching over us. Claims of this nature, albeit earnest, are not
good arguments. I do not believe that in the absence of a total understanding of the universe, we should
1

To a lesser extent this paper will pertain to the nonexistence of all religious gods.

I mention this to stress the importance given to empirical data, and falsifiable claims.

be content to instead posit a supernatural being and say our work is done. Or consider unverifiable texts
written thousands of years ago by primitive civilizations, to be anything other than what they are. And
while experience is certainly something to be valued in our pursuit of knowledge, we do not believe the mad
man when he says a demon has possessed his body, we say he has hallucinated. While there have been, and
continue to be, many serious attempts to rationally explain Gods existence, I will not spend time looking
at these arguments because all of them largely fail. Instead I will present three arguments that, I believe,
succeed in establishing the improbability and inconsistency of such a being.
5. The Logical Problem of Evil
Evil is pervasive throughout our world, whether it take the form of moral evils such as murder, or natural
evils like hurricanes and droughts. This is a fact of experience, that anyone will contendevil exists. Evils
existence is particularly troubling for religion, because they have to provide an answer as to why God allows
such evil to occur. This is not an easy thing to answer, and generally concessions have to be made that in the
end are not quite satisfying. The first version of the problem of evil I will look at is the logical one:
1. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being [MPB].
2. If God is omnipotent, then he can eliminate all evil in the world.
3. If God is omniscient, he knows whenever evil will occur.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, he desires the elimination of all evil in the world.
5. Therefore, if God exists, then evil would not.
6. However, evil exists.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
Simply stated, the [LPE] shows the incongruence between a [MPB] and the existence of evil. The God of
theism is a [MPB]; all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. However if evil exists, then God must
be lacking in at least one of these qualities. To see why this is we look into what these qualities entail about
evil. If God is all powerful, then he has the ability to eliminate all evil; if he is all-knowing, he knows when
evil occurs; and if he is morally perfect, he will desire the elimination of all evil. However it is an empirical
fact that evil exists in our world. So God must either not have the power to eliminate evil, be unaware of
its existence, or not desire its elimination. But if God is lacking any one of these qualities then he is not a
[MPB]he is not God. Therefore, God does not exist. This argument can be attacked in various ways such as
appealing to free will for evils existence, and making a case for particular goods being impossible without
evil, but these objections appear weak and artificial. I think much more has to be said in challenge to the
[LPE].
6. The Evidential Problem of Evil
The [EPE] is similar to the [LPE], however it appeals to the improbability of Gods existence when
considering the massive amount of evil that exists in the world. The argument goes:
1. Evil and suffering exist in the world.
2. If evil and suffering exist in the world, it is very unlikely that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is very unlikely that God exists.
Considering our world, it seems intuitive that the abundance of evil that is present makes it less probable
that God exists. Natural disasters killing thousands, murder, torture, rapeall these evils seem to count
2

against the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God. This point is even more striking when looking at
excessive evils such as genocide, child molestation, and the genital mutilation of children in Africa. Why
does God allow such things to happen? Like the [LPE], opponents will argue that particular goods could not
exist without evil; or, God allows evils because they brings about greater goods, and the existence of these
goods are worth enduring evil for. Again, this seems to be an insufficient answer to the problem. If we were
to use a scale, and weigh every good against every evil, I cannot imagine any iteration in which the former
would outweigh the latter.[3] In my opinion, the problem of evil remains a significant opposition to the
existence of God.
7. The Modal Argument from Contrariety
Given the choice, which seems more probable: that one religion among countless othersall of which are
just as plausible as the nextis right, or that all of them are wrong? The [MAC] considers the impossibility
of multiple religions being true at the same time, and comes to the conclusion that it is more probable that
they are all false.
1. There is a multitude of religions.
2. The truth of one religion entails all other religions are false.
3. If there is a multitude of religions, then each of these religions constitute a possible world in
which it is true.
4. If each of these religions constitute a possible world in which it is true, and the truth of
one religion entails that all other religions are false, then every other religion is false in that
possible world.
5. If every religion is false in every other possible world but its own, then the probability that
any religion is true is extremely low.
6. If the probability that any religion is true is extremely low, then its more probable that all of
them are false.
7. Therefore, it is more probable that all religions are false, than any one religion is true.
We further conclude that the existence of God is unlikely (if all religions are false). This is a modal version
of Humes argument from contrariety. Hume recognized the mutual exclusivity of the many religions, and
reasoned that it was more probable that they were all false, rather than one was true. I think there is
something to be said for this argument, because not only do religions argue for the existence of God, but
they argue for a specific God, one whose mind and intentions they have intimate knowledge of, and whose
existence precludes the existence of all other theistic gods. In this regard, theism is a much less tenable
position as opposed to the weaker deism.

Perhaps one day we will be presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary and I will be forced to
reassess this position, though I think this doubtful. For now the belief in God remains an irrational one.

It might be relevant to consider some form of Leibnizs Felix Culpa theodicy here, however I do not agree with it, and instead agree
with Christopher Hitchens when he says that vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is immoral and totalitarian in nature, and
so something to be considered evil, rather than good.
3