The observation is positively quite ancient and dates back rather a long way. A term often used to describe it is “the Epicurean paradox”.
That says …
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
There is in fact some valid doubts that it was actually Epicurus (310-270 BC) that actually compiled this, this type of argument was favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics, and may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius. However, regardless of who first said it, the argument still stands as valid.
Here is modern philosopher Sam Harris expounding upon this and illustrating just how utterly obscene and narcissist the entire god concept actually is
Beyond the above observations, the very best counter argument that beliefs have ever managed to cobble up is that life is simply a test. That is quite frankly an utterly repugnant idea for numerous reasons …
- Logically …
- if god is supposed to be all knowing, then why would he test us if he already knows the results?
- if god can do anything and is perfect, then why did his creation end up being flawed, did he not know this would happen, and yet could do nothing about it?
- Ethically …
- horrendous and truly evil things happen because god permits it for you to be tested!
However you slice or dice it … the idea of a god who can do anything and knows everything contradicts the reality of the world we live in. Put the god concept together with the reality of the world we live in and clearly you either have a god who is an immoral brutal thug, or … as is clearly more rational … no god at all.