Two words: no evidence. Theologians such as William Lane Craig can throw up all the fancy arguments for god they like, but they still have to face the bare truth of those two words.
Having weighed the sides of the possibility of god debate, I find that there is a lump sum total of zero irrefutable pieces to support his existence, especially the "god" of current theology.
The whole concept is utterly absurd!
God has revealed himself and taught us nothing.
Oh, that's good. Simple and so effing true.
There is no objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of god, theistic arguments are easily shown to be deficient, and science provides plausible answers to the big questions.
All of the cruelness and hurt in the world, and the fact that "god" isn't doing anything about it.
"Fuzzy terminology." I don't think that birth defects do anything to disprove the existence of a god. Certainly, there is no supernatural blueprint that each human being must conform to before completing gestation, but isn't this a tremendously limited view of what a god might be?
Mike, for you, do birth defects tarnish Theism's loving god?
For me, birth defects don't tarnish Deism's uninvolved god.
In the 55 years since I quit religion, I've seen no evidence of any kind of god. I doubt I'll ever see any.
No different than any other gods of myth and legend.