Many religions claim that God created human beings with free will, so that moral evil is our responsibility rather than his. According to this view, we must be capable of choosing evil in order to freely choose good. However, this claim conflicts with how evil is often explained in practice. Harmful behavior is frequently described as the result of illness, psychological dysfunction, ignorance, or compulsion. If evil actions arise from such conditions, then they are not freely chosen in the strong sense required to justify moral blame. If wrongdoing is caused by sickness or impairment, then the agent is not fully free, and responsibility cannot reasonably be assigned in the way religion claims.
This creates a contradiction: either humans freely choose evil, or evil is the result of conditions beyond their control. Both cannot be true at the same time. If people lack genuine freedom in these cases, then suffering cannot be morally justified as punishment. If suffering is unjustified, then a perfectly good and just God cannot be responsible for a world structured this way. In such cases, hatred should be directed toward the harm itself, not toward the individual who causes it, who may deserve understanding or pity rather than condemnation.
I reject the idea of submitting to a being who treats illness or limitation as moral guilt and then justifies the resulting suffering. Blaming human beings for all evil in order to absolve God—especially when God’s existence is unproven—is morally unacceptable. Free will itself has not been demonstrated, and without proof of either God or libertarian free will, it is wrong to accuse real people of deserving suffering for the sake of defending a hypothetical being. To shift responsibility from an unproven God onto human beings is unjust and deeply disrespectful to those who suffer.
I am certain of my own existence. I am not equally certain of God’s existence. It would be irrational to place the moral reputation of an uncertain being above my own dignity or the dignity of other human beings. If God existed and were good, it would be reasonable to expect fair and sufficient evidence of his existence, especially given the seriousness of the claims made in his name. I do not have such evidence. Therefore, belief is not justified.
Is this reasoning too solipsistic? What if I start thinking I matter more than my own spouse as I have more evidence that I am real than that the spouse is? I do not have to discuss that. I am talking about a being that is as undetectable as a cat that has no weight, that makes no sound, avoids being touched and is invisible etc. I already reject beings like this invisible God because I know what an existing being, such as myself, should be like.
To insist on belief despite this lack of evidence is effectively to say: “Even if this belief causes unjust blame and deep harm, I choose to believe anyway.” That attitude shows indifference to suffering and cannot be morally defended.
Regarding creation, several possibilities exist. The universe may be a brute fact—something that exists without a deeper explanation. While unintuitive, this is not logically contradictory. Saying that the universe was created by God out of nothing adds further complexity without explanatory gain. It does not remove the mystery of existence but instead introduces an additional unexplained entity. If “something from nothing” is problematic, then positing a creator who produces something from nothing does not solve the problem—it multiplies it.
Modern cosmology allows for models in which the universe undergoes cycles of expansion and contraction, or where many universes exist across time or possibility. In such scenarios, it is not surprising that at least one universe would have conditions compatible with life. Apparent design can arise through chance combined with vast numbers of trials. No intelligent designer needs to be assumed.
Even if a god were to exist, belief would still require moral and evidential
justification. A being who allows or demands unjust blame, unexplained
suffering, or belief without evidence would not deserve worship. Therefore, both
on rational and moral grounds, belief in God is unjustified.