remises is evident and logical that is “There is no God”. The deduction is built on the foundation of the logical thought course that states that if an all-PKG exists then He is powerful enough to stop evil, He is knowing enough to distinguish right from wrong and He is good enough to He should wish to prevent evil. However, evil still persists and prevails therefore the concept of an all PKG God is baseless and untrue. II. Rejecting the First Version of Argument from Evil A. Rejecting the First Premise The three premises of first version reject the concept of an all-PKG God in unison and co-dependence. Furthermore, these premises employ sound logic which makes this argument undeniably valid. Therefore, to falsify the deduction and conclusion of these three premises, any one of the three premises needs to be rejected . The first premise is regarded as the definition of God by many. If it is indeed the definition of God, then rejecting it would mean to reject the notion that God exists. However, if we perceive it as a theory rather than a strict definition, then it would mean to reject the notion of God being all-PKG not His existence entirely . For example, in accordance with rejecting the first premise, Greeks did not believe their Gods to be all powerful. Manichaeism and Zoroastrian religions also don’t hold the belief of an all-powerful God. But even by rejecting first premise as a theory, the theistic concepts and beliefs of many religions who deem God as the Almighty and Omnipotent are disrupted. B. Rejecting the Third Premise If we reject the third premise it would mean to reject the presence of evil. The argument from evil describes evil to have two kinds; natural and human-controlled . Natural evil governs the suffering inflicted upon mankind by natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis etc. Human controlled evil refers to the suffering and misery inflicted by humans on humans. For example, the torture the Jews were subjected to by the Nazi Regime in the second world war or the miseries inflicted upon the poor by raising taxes and inflation. Rejecting the third premise is only possible if one turned a blind eye to all the suffering in the world. Suffering is not something perceived by the eyes, it is perceived by the heart and to ignore it would mean being heartless. It’s possible to reject the third premise if we viewed the world as neutral and indifferent to morality . If the world were devoid of emotion and feelings, only the>