How COVID-19 Falsifies the God Hypothesis Nicole Scott Free Inquiry

I remember informal late-night debates about the existence of God in my college dorm over fifty years ago. These hot discussions inevitably ended in a predictable way. I might have said, “Well, you can’t prove that God exists,” and my opponent might have retorted, “Well, you can’t prove he doesn’t.” Stalemate. End of discussion. I didn’t like that ending, and I spent decades trying to create a different outcome.

I now realize that several persons throughout history have already proven that God does not exist. I am thinking about Theodore Drange,1 Victor Stenger,2 Christopher Hitchens,3 and James Sterba.4 You don’t have to search every nook and cranny of the universe to conclude that God does not exist. There is a more practical way to do it.

The first step is to define God. Of course, there probably have been thousands of definitions offered, but it is important that you don’t set up a straw man and that you specify a definition that accurately represents the concept of God that most people who have believed in God during the past five thousand years hold. I call this “the standard definition of God,” and I will present it shortly. The second step is to take the standard definition seriously and from it make predictions about what we should and should not observe in the real world if God did exist. The third step is to make relevant and accurate observations of the world. The fourth step is to show that the predictions made in step two are disconfirmed by the observations of step three. And the final step is to conclude that God does not exist. This hypothesis testing reflects the scientific method and comports with the views of Karl Popper on falsification.5 Various proofs against the existence of God have been presented that use this reliable template.

Pursuing this tried-and-true path, I will present my own proof that God does not exist. It is a new variation on the Argument from Evil or Argument from Suffering, highly favored by atheists and exasperating to theists. Along the way, I will point out how my proof differs from similar proofs.

A god (lower case “g”) is any hypothetical supernatural person or intelligent agent; God (upper case “G”) is just one particular god. God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos and sometimes intervenes in our world. I call this description “the standard definition” because it is modern, succinct, comprehensive, sufficient, and representative. The word God is a proper name for one distinct god, just like “Thomas Jefferson” is the name for one distinct man and U.S. president. Most of the 2.3 billion Christians, most of the 1.8 billion Muslims, and about half of the 14 million Jews in the world believe that this specific god exists.6 And so, it is especially meaningful when we clearly demonstrate that God does not exist.

How did I come up with the definition? I read English translations of the Torah, Bible, and Qur’an. I read the views of theologians, historians, and philosophers of religion, including William Lane Craig7 and Richard Swinburne.8 I read surveys of religious beliefs. I’ve had hundreds of discussions and debates online and in person about the nature of God. I believe I have captured the essence of what God has meant to most people throughout most of written history.

Of course, not everyone might agree with the standard definition I present, but potentially we could put it to an empirical test. Try this thought experiment: Randomly select 50,000 people from around the world to participate in a survey. Present each person with the same list of 100 possible characteristics or traits of God and ask them to check all that describe “God.” Include all the traits in the current standard definition as well as traits not typically used, such as “very tall,” “very evil,” and “very handsome.” List the traits in a random order. Compile the results. Formulate a new definition of God based on the traits endorsed by 90 percent or more of the sample. My prediction is that this definition would closely resemble my standard definition.

One challenger of my definition said that majority opinion is not the measure of truth. Of course he is correct in most contexts, but not this one. The definitions of words correspond to what most people think they mean. This is the case with God, but it has nothing to do with the actual existence or nonexistence of God. That’s a separate issue to be addressed forthwith.

The meanings of most of the traits of God in the standard definition are self-evident, but of course they should be clearly defined. Here I will do that for a few that are especially relevant and may be controversial. Notice that in the standard definition I used the term cosmos. I intend for this word to refer either to the only universe of which we have knowledge, i.e., the one we live in stemming from the big bang, or to a multiverse, which has been hypothesized by some cosmologists and physicists and which would include our own universe. So, by cosmos, I mean the whole shebang.

If God did exist, then according to our standard definition, he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral. These are the three traditional omni-traits attributed to God, which are most relevant in constructing an argument from evil or suffering, as I am doing here.

“All-knowing” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who knows everything that can possibly be known about anything and everything. They have complete, accurate knowledge of all facts about the past, the present, and the future and about the laws of nature. The exception would be that this trait would not include knowing anything that is logically impossible to know. One who is all-knowing would know in advance all facts about the COVID-19 pandemic, including what it is, how it started and spread, and its consequences.

“All-powerful” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who is capable of doing anything that it is logically possible to do. Because it is logically impossible to make a square triangle, an all-powerful person or agent could not do this. Because it is logically possible to have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic, an all-powerful person could have done this.

“Perfectly moral” is the hypothetical trait of a person or intelligent agent who behaves morally 100 percent of the time or in 100 percent of the relevant opportunities. This person or agent makes no moral errors. They are morally infallible. But what does it mean to be “moral”? There is some controversy about this, but I assert that it means to behave in respectful, cooperative, compassionate, just, and reasonable ways toward other persons and to behave in compliance with the moral rules comprising Correct Universal Ethics.

Correct Universal Ethics

Correct Universal Ethics is an ideal and comprehensive set of moral rules that are not only correct but apply to all persons, intelligent agents, or entities, including humans and any others that might exist—alien, divine, electronic, or animal in nature. A moral rule, formulated as a permission, prescription, or prohibition, is correct if it is derived by competent persons or agents while using reason and minimizing their preconceptions and biases. An example of a Correct Universal Ethics rule is “No person should enslave another person.” This moral rule is correct and universal even though slavery has been practiced at different times in different places by different groups of persons throughout history. Thus, by and large, Correct Universal Ethics is not relative to culture, race, ethnicity, time, or place. Correct Universal Ethics is very similar to what some Christians, e.g., William Lane Craig,9 and some atheists, e.g., Michael Shermer,10 call “objective morality.”

If God did exist (he doesn’t), then he would have devised Correct Universal Ethics by reason before he created other persons as part of his “grand plan.” On the other hand, if we were to compile all the correct universal moral rules devised by human persons throughout history into one manual, we would approximate Correct Universal Ethics. In my opinion, we should arrange for the development of Correct Universal Ethics from the “ground up” by assembling a panel of nine moral experts from throughout the world to take a year to formulate a comprehensive manual of correct and universal moral rules. The details for this proposal are beyond the scope of this essay. I just mean for Correct Universal Ethics to constitute the first floor built on the moral foundations offered by Sam Harris11 and Robert Johnson.12 Nevertheless, here I will present one particular Correct Universal Ethics rule that is highly relevant to proving that God does not exist.

Correct Universal Ethics would necessarily include a rule about preventing harm to other persons. This would occur when a person should attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm to another person or group of persons, if and only if all these contingencies are met:

The opportunity to help by prevention is certainly or probably known.
The harm is certainly or probably preventable.
The prevention attempt will certainly or probably not cause death.
The prevention attempt will certainly or probably not cause permanent injury.
The prevention attempt will certainly or probably not cause great suffering.
Allowing the harm is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing greater harm.
Allowing the harm is probably or certainly not necessary to producing a benefit that outweighs the harm.

Any person has a moral duty to attempt to prevent harm if all seven of these contingencies are satisfied. Persons behave morally when they attempt to prevent a moderate to severe harm when all seven relevant specific contingencies are met; if they don’t attempt that, then they behave immorally.

Let’s take a simple example. Suppose you are a competent swimmer spending the day at the beach. You are minding your own business when you see a child in the ocean who appears to be drowning. Nobody is helping the child. Is it your moral duty to try to save the child? Yes, it is, providing that all seven contingencies of the prevention rule are met. You certainly know about the opportunity to help the child. You are certainly able to prevent the harm to the child, because you are a competent swimmer and the child is small. You could die, be permanently injured, or suffer greatly in the prevention attempt, but none of these is likely. Ignoring the child and thus allowing harm to the child is probably or certainly not necessary to preventing some greater harm, and neither is it necessary to producing a benefit that outweighs the harm to the child. So, you meet all seven contingencies, and it is your duty to attempt to save the child. If you attempt to save the child, then you behave morally. If you don’t make the attempt, you behave immorally. Although in most jurisdictions you are not legally required to try to rescue the child,13 you are still morally obligated to do so.

The moral rule on prevention requires anyone to attempt to prevent any moderate to severe harm, but not light harm, to another person or group of persons. Let’s define these qualifiers—light, moderate, severe. A light harm is one occurring to a single person that entails an injury not requiring medical care and/or entails suffering lasting no more than a day, e.g., a scratch on the arm by a pet kitten. A moderate harm is one occurring to a single person that entails an injury or disease requiring medical care, and/or suffering lasting more than a day, and/or premature death, e.g., breast cancer. A severe harm is a set of moderate harms occurring to a group of persons, usually from the same cause, e.g., the Holocaust and the COVID-19 pandemic. Yes, these are rough definitions and simple examples. Nevertheless, most people can classify harms into these three categories of increasing severity, and God could do it too—if he existed.

In our classification scheme, the COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly a severe harm. It resulted in moderate harms to many people in the period 2019–2022,  and it will probably continue for another few years. As of May 24, 2022, in the United States alone there have been 8.,145,591 cases of the disease and 999,384 deaths from it.14 In a serious case of the illness, a person is hospitalized, and over the course of a month has increasing difficulty breathing until they finally succumb to death, often isolated from family and friends. The suffering is intense, although in many cases relief has been provided by medical interventions devised since the beginning of the pandemic. Now imagine thousands or millions of cases like this. In many debates, I have been asked, “Why did you choose to base your argument on the COVID-19 pandemic when you could have chosen innumerable severe harms as your basis?” My answer is that this pandemic is current, severe, widespread, and indiscriminate, and it is still in the public eye. Most people know somebody who has tested positive for the virus; has been sick, hospitalized, or died from this disease; or has been affected by it in some other way, e.g., unemployment, social isolation, and depression. Furthermore, there is no good evidence that any person or group of persons knowingly and intentionally created the virus or caused its spread from the outset. The famous “free will” defense against arguments from evil or suffering that Alvin Plantigna15 made and popularized applies to the COVID-19 pandemic, a severe harm that simply happened to people through natural causes.

If he did exist, would God meet the seven contingencies mentioned in the prevention rule? Yes, he would! Because he would be all-knowing, God would certainly have known about the opportunity to help persons by preventing the pandemic. Because God would be all-powerful, he would certainly have been able to prevent the pandemic. Because he would be all-powerful, invulnerable, and eternal, he would certainly not have died, been permanently injured, or suffered greatly in any attempt to prevent the pandemic. If he did exist, because God would be all‑powerful, his allowing the pandemic would certainly not have been necessary to prevent some greater harm. God would have been able to prevent any greater harm without allowing the pandemic. The laws of necessity or nature that apply to persons would not apply to God. And because he would be all‑powerful, God’s allowing the pandemic would certainly not be necessary to produce some benefit that outweighs the pandemic. God would be able to produce any benefit without allowing the pandemic. Once again, the laws of necessity or nature that apply to persons would not apply to God. For God, the suffering to humanity from the pandemic is excessive, unnecessary, pointless, and gratuitous.

Persons behave morally if they attempt to prevent a moderate or severe harm when all seven relevant contingencies are met; otherwise, they behave immorally when in the same situation. As we have seen, the COVID-19 pandemic is a severe harm, God would meet the seven contingencies, and, by definition, he would be perfectly moral. And so, he would have prevented the pandemic—if he existed. But we know the rest of the story—the pandemic does exist and has ravaged the world. There is only one conclusion to draw: God does not exist!

The logic of my argument takes the form of modus tollens. This form discovered by the ancient Greeks is very simply “If G, then not P. But P. Therefore, not G.” The premises are true, the logic is valid, and thus the conclusion must be true. Yes, it is another argument from evil or suffering, but what makes it different? First, it focuses on a current severe harm with which most people can identify. Second, it uses a “standard definition” of God. Third, it does not attempt to prove that all gods do not exist. And last and most important, it explains the moral basis for God’s duty to prevent the severe harm of the pandemic. In his recent book, James Sterba said, “Bringing untapped resources of ethics to bear on the problem, however, should actually help us reach a solution to the problem of evil.”16 My argument fulfills Sterba’s suggestion. I believe that all the classic arguments from evil or suffering against the existence of God are really moral arguments against his existence, because ultimately they rest on one or more moral duties.


I have presented various rough drafts of my argument in discussions with over a hundred theists, atheists, and agnostics. Responses have been mixed. I will present some of the more common objections and my rebuttals of them.

“God works in mysterious ways.” This is question begging and has always been simply an appeal to ignorance.

“You cannot challenge, question, or criticize God.” Who says? The believer, of course, but in doing so he begs the question of God’s existence and supreme goodness. However, any skeptical person is entitled to challenge, question, or criticize any authority—be it real, hypothetical, or imaginary. Reason is the universal acid. In the Book of Job, the character of God covers up his real reasons for allowing Job’s suffering by disgracefully shaming Job for asking questions. These kinds of cover-ups no longer fool reasonable, skeptical people.

“You don’t know the mind of God, so you don’t know what God would or would not do.” In one sense I agree. Nobody knows the mind of God because God doesn’t exist! However, we can infer from the standard definition of God what he would and would not do if he did exist. If we use reason to make these inferences, we conclude that God would not have allowed the COVID-19 pandemic. But many believers fail to use reason, and so by faith they conclude that God would allow or even cause the pandemic. Such an act would be immoral, which would be contrary to God’s moral perfection.

“God exists and he probably or definitely has good reasons for allowing the COVID-19 pandemic, but we just don’t know what those reasons are.” This is probably the most common objection of all, and unfortunately it is usually a conversation stopper. There are at least four problems with this objection. First, it begs the question of God’s existence. Second, it is another argument from ignorance. Third, if God did exist and had good reasons, then we would know what they were because God would have long ago disclosed them! Any perfectly moral person would explain to victims and their families any reasons for allowing or causing severe harm such as COVID-19. I have asked many Christians to arrange a meeting with God, us, and several of our friends in which God could disclose good reasons for allowing the pandemic, but so far, no luck. The disclosure of reasons is always necessary for the full assessment of accountability. Last, and most important, it is actually impossible for God to have any good reasons for allowing the pandemic! His omnipotence precludes such reasons. Let’s see why.

Occasionally, we persons allow, authorize, or even cause another person to be harmed. There are at least two possible good reasons for us to do so. The harm may be necessary to produce a benefit that far outweighs the harm, or it may be necessary to prevent another harm greater than the original harm. For example, we have a good reason to authorize our children to be vaccinated. The harm of the vaccination—i.e., slight pain, discomfort, sore arm, possible brief illness—is necessary to prevent another greater harm, i.e., the full-blown disease that the vaccine is designed to ward off. But good reasons such as these would not be available to God. Why? Because allowing, authorizing, or causing a moderate or severe harm would not be necessary for God to produce a greater benefit or prevent a greater harm. Being all-powerful, God could do the latter without the former. Theists are never able to offer good reasons for God to allow a pandemic because there are none to be offered! In all possible worlds in which God exists, he would prevent the pandemic.

“The positive traits that people develop in reaction to COVID-19 outweigh the harms done by the disease, and so there is a net gain.” Often the types of positive traits developed in victims are said to include courage, toughness, resilience, and gratitude, and those developed in loved ones and helpers are said to include compassion, helpfulness, empathy, and hope. This objection is representative of the “soul making” theodicy of John Hick.17 Yes, some people do develop positive traits in response to instances of the disease, but overall the math doesn’t work out to sustain Hickian theodicies. For the people who die, there is no opportunity to exercise any new positive attitudes—if they would have gained any at all. For many people who survive the disease, perhaps most, any new positive attitudes gained do not outweigh the harms. To get closer to perfect morality, God might cause the positive attitudes to outweigh the harms in every case, but this is hardly what we observe. If we were to ask victims: “Did your character become so much better because of your experience of COVID-19 that you’d like to get it again or wish that your loved ones would get it too?,” the answers “No and No” would predominate. If God did exist, positive traits such as courage and compassion would still exist in a world with light harms but no moderate or severe harms, such as the pandemic but to a lesser degree.

“God exists and he probably or definitely has good reasons for allowing the COVID-19 pandemic, but our puny minds would not understand the reasons even if God presented them to us.” This idea contradicts the omnipotence trait. If God did exist, being all-powerful, he would enable us to understand his reasons by perfectly clear communication, some grand demonstration, and/or instantaneous enhancement of our cognitive abilities. Lack of comprehension would be no problem at all.

“By allowing the pandemic, God influences more people to believe in him and trust him than would otherwise occur without the pandemic.” This is similar to an earlier objection: attempting to present a good reason for allowing the harm. But this is ridiculous. If he did exist, God could, would, and should find a better way to draw people to him than the pandemic. For example, if he were to reveal himself currently, universally, unambiguously, and objectively, that would certainly suffice. In this grand revelation, he could even have prevented the pandemic and advertised that fact.

“We should just ignore the harm of the pandemic. Our time on Earth is just a flash of time in eternity. After all, God will compensate the victims of the pandemic in heaven.” There is no good evidence for an afterlife, heaven, or hell. Appeals to an afterlife and the attendant compensation for harm are arguments from ignorance. A system of allowing persons to be pandemic victims and then providing them delayed compensation, without giving warnings or obtaining informed consent, would itself be immoral and thus incompatible with God’s nature if he did exist. When I have discussed this possibility with Christians, they are twisted in knots about what God would do for atheist pandemic victims who had not accepted the “saving grace of Jesus Christ.”

“God exists, but he is not perfectly moral, as your alleged definition insists. Instead, God is amoral or independent of ethics altogether.” I will be making a full reply to this objection in an upcoming book cowritten with theologian and debating partner Dr. Brian Huffling.18 However, for now it is enough to note that throughout history, God has been viewed as righteous, just, good, benevolent, loving, and moral to the highest possible degree by most lay persons and religious experts. In Mark 10:18 NIV, even the character of Jesus says, “Why do you call me good? … No one is good—except God alone.” Amorality or indifference could be attributed to some hypothetical all-powerful god, but this god would not be God.

The doctrine of divine exceptionalism is the belief that some particular god would be exempt from moral evaluation by human beings or from culpability under a rational, objective, and universal morality. This belief is usually rationalized by saying that the god is exempt because he is sovereign, the creator of everything, the supreme authority, the highest intelligence, or just all-powerful or very powerful. The belief implies that the god could do or allow anything at all—e.g., torture of children, rape of women, enslavement of persons—or allow or create natural disasters, cancer, or men who rape women, and such actions would be neutral or above reproach. This is an irrational belief related to the ancient idea that kings were above the law or to the modern idea that presidents are immune from prosecution. But if he existed, God would create Correct Universal Ethics and would not exempt himself from it. Exemption would be hypocritical and irrational, contrary to the nature of the alleged almighty. Furthermore, we humans need not be bamboozled by divine exceptionalism. We can judge any person by Correct Universal Ethics from the lowest to the highest without exception.

“We already know that God is not or could not be perfectly moral. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, shows that he is a moral monster.” This idea has been well documented by Dan Barker.19 It is certainly true that God is depicted in the Bible as having committed or commanded many horrendous, unethical, and evil acts. What shall we make of this? First, most or all these acts cannot be confirmed with sound evidence. Second, these presumed acts reflect the primitive morality of the authors who wrote about them. They believed such acts were justified if performed by God. Now we know better. And last, these acts are incompatible with the positive traits attributed to God throughout the Bible and Qur’an.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is simply God’s punishment to future generations for Adam and Eve’s sins of disobedience, like all plagues are.” The Garden of Eden story—what a joke! If God did exist, he would never engage in cross-generational punishment. That would violate the principle of individual accountability, be immoral, and be incompatible with God’s perfectly moral nature.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is simply God’s punishment of people for the sins they have committed.” This objection doesn’t work because the pattern of harm from the pandemic does not reflect what divine justice would look like. For example, the pandemic is indiscriminate. It affects good people as well as bad ones, religious people as well as nonreligious people. Also, there was no advanced declaration of rules and specific punishments promised for rule violations. There is no obvious correlation of degree of harm from the pandemic with degree or frequency of sinning.

In Summary

My argument against the existence of God is a proof because the definitions are sound, the premises are true, and the logic is valid per modus tollens. Therefore, the conclusion must be true. The argument can be formulated in seventeen steps so that all the reasoning is laid out clearly, but here I will condense it to seven steps:

If God did exist, then he would be a person who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly moral.
If any person attempts to prevent a moderate or severe harm when seven relevant contingencies are met, then they are behaving morally; if they do not make the attempt, then they are behaving immorally.
The COVID-19 pandemic is a severe harm.
If God did exist, because the seven specific contingencies relevant to the prevention of severe harm would be met with respect to him, God would behave morally and try to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic.
If God did exist, then he would succeed in his prevention effort, and the COVID-19 pandemic would not exist at all.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic does exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Perhaps the most controversial premise to the argument is step two. How do we know that this is a true premise? As Thomas Jefferson might have said, “It is self-evident.” As a committed theist might say without thinking of application to God himself, “It is exactly what God would command.” But we secular humanists must have better justification. Let’s use reason within a utilitarian ethical framework.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine a group of 100 persons stranded on an island. Now imagine a second identical group of 100 persons stranded on a second identical island. Suppose that inhabitants of the first island always comply with the prevention moral rule stated in contingency two and that inhabitants of the second island never comply with that rule. Applying criteria of survival, reproduction, well-being, and advancement, which island community is likely to do better? I believe it is obvious that the first island would do better. This could be verified by examining the evidence from history, social psychology experiments, and computer simulations. I also think that the consensus of a panel of moral experts would endorse the moral rule of contingency two rather than its converse.

I wish I had known in the college dorm discussions fifty years ago what I know now: the existence of God can and has been disproved! The reality of the COVID-19 pandemic falsifies the God hypothesis. Another nail in the coffin. Amen.

[1] Theodore M. Drange, Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998.

[2] Victor J. Stenger, God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.

[3] Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Hatchett Book Group, 2007.

[4] James P. Sterba, Is a Good God Logically Possible? Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillon, 2019.

[5] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2002.

[6] Pew Research Center, “When Americans Say They Believe in God, What Do They Mean?” April 25, 2018. Available online at americans say they believe in god what do they mean/; see also, Harriet Sherwood, “Religion: Why Faith Is Becoming More and More Popular,” The Guardian, August 27, 2018. Available online at why is faith growing and what happens next.

[7] William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

[8] Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?  New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.

[9] William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist.

[10] Michael Shermer, “Is the Reality of Evil Good Evidence against the Christian God? Notes from a Debate on the Problem of Evil.” Skeptic, vol. 24 no, 2, 2019, pp. 42–48.

[11] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press, 2010.

[12] Robert Johnson, Rational Morality: A Science of Right and Wrong. Great Britain: Dangerous Little Books, 2013.

[13] “Duty to Rescue.” Available online at

[14] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “United States COVID 19 Cases, Deaths, and Laboratory Testing (NAATs) by State, Territory, and Jurisdiction.” Available online at data tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days; accessed July 23, 2021.

[15] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.

[16] James P. Sterba, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, p. 5.

[17] John Hick, Evil and the God of Love. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillon, 2010.

[18] Brian Huffling and Gary Whittenberger, Has the Existence of God Been Disproved? An Atheist and a Christian Debate the Question. Publication Pending.

[19] Dan Barker, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. New York, NY: Sterling, 2016.

I remember informal late-night debates about the existence of God in my college dorm over fifty years ago. These hot discussions inevitably ended in a predictable way. I might have said, “Well, you can’t prove that God exists,” and my opponent might have retorted, “Well, you can’t prove he doesn’t.” Stalemate. End of discussion. I …