against his being. However, the whole concept seems floored. For if we are to understand God as being the supreme being then we must surely see him as being above the rationality of mortals, and yet we discuss things that he may or may not have done, and should and shouldn't do, justifying them using our own codes of morality, rationality and ethics. By definition God's actions cannot be rationalised as we rationalise our own. The analogy that immediately springs to mind is that of a court minus the defendant. It would seem foolish to us for a lawyer to defend a man, never having met him, or had a chance to discuss his MO. Applying one's own rational to another is foolish, because typically another person will justify their actions differently, i.e. they will have another motive for doing something due to the fact that people think independently, and not as a group. Our actions and reasons are personal, perhaps influenced, but unique – a benefit of free will. So, it is not only arrogant, but foolish to try and argue for or against the existence of God based on nature, natural events, emotions, states of being, circumstance or situation. Therefore the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved and the result is that belief comes down to a simple choice, you either do or you don't – and your reason can be no more than a feeling, and cannot be based on physical evidence.
             In it's most basic form the problem is:
             1. God is perfectly good and so does not wish suffering to take place.
             This poses a clear contradiction, for if God is all the things that we listed above, then evil could not exist. If God is omniscient, God must know that there are instances of evil in the world; if God is omnipotent then God must be able to prevent these instances from occurring ; if God is perfectly good, then God must want to prevent occurrences of evil. But there are instances of evil in the world, so God mus...