Gods non existence more likely true than false

DefinitionsGod - An omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being. Unnecessary suffering - suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. God exists vs God does not existFor my first argument we look at two mutually exclusive possibilities, the first where God exists (GE) and the second where God does not exist (GDE). GE) We live in a world where God and suffering exists. Any and all suffering only happens if and only if God permits it. Also the suffering that God permits only happens if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good. GDE) We live in a world where God does NOT exist but suffering does. So how do we justify which world we live in ? For that we turn to occams razor which states. .. "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 " 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [1]Take pretty much any instance of suffering. A child tortured, animals eating each other alive, an earthquake causing bricks to fall on people. Every bone broken, every rib cracked, every person blinded every spine severed can be made compatible with the claim that God exists and God allowed these things to happen. But these things are also compatible with the claim that God does not exist, and God did not prevent these things because it does not exist. Seeing that both hypotheses explain the absence of such a Gods action equally well Occams razor enjoins us to go with the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions ergo we should go with the God does not exist option as it makes fewer assumptions. Divine Silence"God answers all prayers, but sometimes his answer is 'no" - Dan BrownThis would be a good response. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. if it were actually true. People don't get a "no" answer from God. Consider for example some one who is told that they have cancer and they pray to God to heal them of their cancer. Now here is the thing maybe they survive the cancer maybe they don't but at no point does God tell you "no" or "yes", God if it exists will allow some one to sit their in their terror and uncertainty as prayer after prayer is offered. Now sure if such a person later on gets a good outcome the person may attribute the outcome as answered prayer from God and may even be encouraged from various religious believers that this is the case but on it's own this is just confirmation bias. Sam Harris argues. .. "Given all that this God of yours does not accomplish in the lives of others, given the misery that is being imposed on some helpless child at this instant this kind of faith is obscene. To think in this way is a failure to reason honestly or care sufficiently about the suffering of other human beings" [2]So once again using occams razor why the divine silence ? The non existence of such a God explains the data using less amount of assumptions compared to the existence of such a God. Moral ParalysisIf we operate on the assumption that God exists it leads to moral paralysis. Remember if God exists then unnecessary suffering does NOT exist because any and all suffering only happens if and only if God permits it. Also the suffering that God permits only happens if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good. Should we release child rapists from prison ? should we cease to prevent by force those who would rape and torture children ? informing then we are sorry, we didn't realize that the suffering they caused was a necessary condition to bring about a greater good. "Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies. " (3) (Sinnott Armstrong,2004, P84). " [3]Should we seek to stop any and all medical treatment to children because their suffering is necessary to bring about a greater good ? Of course we won't. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .well most of us. It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing suffering which was logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. But this can only be the case if God does not exist. I look forward to Cons replySources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org......'s_razor[2] [3] God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.