While I am curious as to what "God" you're speaking of I will go off of the assumption that it is the Theistic God (Of which religion I have no clue). Either way, yes, there are a couple of good philosophical arguments against the Existence of a benevolent God. The main argument would be the evidential problem of evil. Essentially it is
(1.) If God exists gratuitous evils do not exist.
(2.) Gratuitous evils do exist.
(3.) Therefore God does not exist.
Now, be reminded that this argument has no bearing on a morally neutral God (think Deism here) however it does severely impact any theistic God. I as a Christian do not personally see it as a defeater, however I will keep my reasoning to myself and let you sort out your own ideas on the argument!
As others have pointed out, the existence of an omni-potent, all-knowing, perfectly good diety is logically incompatible with the world we live in, for a few reasons. Perhaps the most common is the 'argument from evil', which states that a god with all three aforementioned qualities (all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good) cannot coexist with evil. We obviously know that unneseccary evil exists, so the most reasonable conclusion here is that God does not exist. This argument, of course, does nothing to disprove a god which lacks one or more of these qualities, but I do think it demonstrates how God can be logically disproven.
You cannot have a all loving, all knowing all powerful god when bad things happen in the world. Either the god:
1. Knows and can do something about it but doesn't care
2. Cares and can do something about it but doesn't know or
3. Knows and cares but is powerless to stop it
Therefore you can remove one of gods 'facets' through this argument and proof. The god who sets tests for her own creations can therefore be seen as the first kind of god. May be all knowing and all powerful but prefers people to suffer (even the innocent) than to intervene. However, then you can call in to question the all knowing part: why test your own creations when you know what they'll do? The very fact that god has to test her creations indicates that she is not all knowing either or she is intentionally cruel. Therefore, only the all powerful is left but without intervention that demonstrates this power it is impossible to prove or disprove this.
You cannot disprove something that isn't there but you can disprove that the kind of god that people like to believe in cannot logically exist.
Using the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" method of the "philosophy major". The following logic, being acceptable in every field of philosophy and rhetoric or western thought:
If it cannot be proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist; Then it must be possible (if not probable) that God does, in fact exist.
God's non-existence can not be proved and similarly his existence can also have no empirical evidence. God exists in the believers faith and faith only provides the reason for the existence of God. The way of the agnostics is the right path in this regard. We cannot prove neither disprove the existence. However, in my opinion God's existence is self evident in his creation and he is beyond rational argumentation. God is transcendent and is beyond the space and time as we know of them. He is both immanent and transcendent and these aspects should not be ignored.
A simple conception of God -- that invokes few assumptions, but fits the ordinary idea of God (e.G. Creator, sentient) -- is unfalsifiable philosophically and scientifically. Despite the argument, there can always be a multitude of ad hoc explanations that can be invoked, thus nullifying said argument. Any argument only forces an addition of ad hoc explanations, thus making the God in question frequently fail ontological parsimony, abductive reasoning, etc. The transcendence of most conceptions of God makes God unfalsifiable scientifically, and, since philosophy is largely limited to within the universe, it could also be considered unfalsifiable philosophically. It's impossible to "prove" or "disprove" God inductively, since that presumes that empirical evidence has some bearing on God. God, by definition, is conceived as being distinct from the empirical, and, often, even the rational. The only "negative argument" I'm able to think of is theological non-cognitivism, though (a) God being beyond cognition doesn't necessarily pose a barrier to existence, and (b) non-cognitivism can be seen as a position distinct from atheism, thus it won't be a "negative proof" or "negative argument." But I would hold that very clear conceptions of God, e.g. Zeus (who is clearly imagined with physical features), can have negative arguments in rejection of them.
Proving that there is no God is not something that any human being will ever be able to do, no matter what "evidence" appears, or what arguments are written up. This is mainly because, one: it is impossible to prove (philosophically at least) that something does not exist, because often, in order for something not to exist it must be completely disconnected from any sort of physical object or process, it must cease to have affect or to be affected by/to anything, and thus shows no evidence of it's existence, but at the same time, because there is no specific way of proving that it does not exist because there is no way of providing any strong evidence of it's non existence, it also shows a possibility that it could exist after-all. Secondly: In order to prove the non-existence of a God, you would have to go through every single Religion that there ever has been and individually prove the non-existence of every single God. Considering that many Religions have very different beliefs, this would prove to be an impossible task, especially when you consider that to this day, no one has officially been able to truly de-bunk even one Religion.
My response to your argument however, is that a lot of the evil in the world is actually committed by humans. After all, it is us who start wars, spread lies and take more than we need. Of course, a counter- argument to this would be that if God is loving, why would he allow this? And what about all the evils that we are not responsible for, like earthquakes and disease? My answer would be that if you think about it, we are actually, as humans, responsible for these things. You see, in the beginning, everything was perfect, there was no pain or suffering at all, but then we chose to step away from God and disobey him, and as a consequence of our actions, we must now live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect events. However this is not the end. God came down in human flesh to die for us so that when we die we may once again live in a perfect place, its just up to us as to whether or not we choose to accept it.