The proof is a simple deduction from certain basic assumptions which themselves are only assumptions in the sense of assuming the description you use for your god is true in the first instance. It goes without saying that if your description of your god is false then the god you are describing is also false.
Let's assume your god is real and has the following notional characteristics.
- Omnipotent - all powerful - there is nothing your god can't do.
- Omniscient - all knowing - there is nothing your god doesn't know.
- Omni-benevolent - all-loving - there is nothing your god wouldn't do to defend and protect its creation.
Okay so far? Is there anything you disagree with here? Is there something your god can't do if it has a mind to? Is there anything your god doesn't know? How about all loving? Is there anything or anyone your god doesn't love and for whom it has anything less than the greatest possible concern?
If all these were true there would be no suffering in the world because your god would be aware of it, would want to prevent it and would have the power to do so.
It also follows that, if there is suffering in the world, at least one of the above must be false and if one of the above is false, the god you believe in does not have the characteristics you believe it has; in other words, the god you believe in does not exist
And yet we can see suffering exists. This is an observable, undeniable, inescapable fact.
For suffering to exist, your god must be deficient in at least one of the above. At least one of the following must be true. God is:
- Unable to prevent it, so it isn't omnipotent.
- Unaware of it, so it isn't omniscient.
- Unconcerned about it, so it isn't all-loving
Strange then that so much of your time is spent asking your god to either stop, reduce or prevent suffering, which is nothing more than tacit acceptance that an omniscience, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god doesn't exist.
Of course, you can escape the above logic by saying your god isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscience and/or isn't omni-benevolent, but a god who can't change things, doesn't know when they need to be changed and/or isn't bothered anyway isn't much of a god and certainly not one worthy of worship. In fact, it's hard to imagine how we could distinguish such a god from a non-existent one.
I love these simple little proofs that gods don't exist. They are so much more elegant and simple than the cumbersome, convoluted and illogical 'proofs' which religious apologists have to try to get away with. That's the great thing about being supported by evidence, reason, logic and truth, and so not needing to fall back on the fallacy of faith and having to employ charlatans to make you feel better about being superstitious.