Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God Kindle Edition

I loved the book and Armin’s points. Quite frankly the book left me wanting more from Armin. Can’t wait for the other books you teased at the end!

Well, I've just finished reading Armin's book, and I must say, as an atheist, I thought that he did a fine job.Let's go over the pros and cons of the book together:Pros:- The book is succinct, precise, and well-written. Armin's writing flows very well, is not tiresome, does not go out of its way to use unnecessary "SAT vocabulary" and get's to the point.- The chapters flow coherently, and sometimes build on each other. That's good organization.- He covers many different questions, and does a swell job of doing it. He does add some subtle nuance to his counterarguments, which was appreciated as a seasoned atheist.- If you're a seasoned atheist like myself, this book serves as a great refresher.- If you have friends who are fledgling atheists, agnostics, or theists who are intellectually honest, this book is a great introduction to the topic, and less polemic than say, Boghossian's "A Manual for Creating Atheists," (although I enjoyed that book as well).- The book is physically well-made, from the cover material, to the cover design, even the paper type.- There are sources at the end of each chapter for further reading. Again, not only are there sources, but they are at the end of the chapter, which I find more convenient than sources at the end of a book.Cons:- It doesn't go into too much detail on any one of the chapters, but this is forgivable because Armin gives a good, concise treatment to all of them. The only ones that I wish had more detail were the ones that considered philosophical arguments for god, like the Transcendental Argument or the Cosmological Argument.Biggest Caveat:- In Chapter 14, which features his counterargument to the Transcendental Argument for God, aka TAG, Armin argues that the natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive, and doesn't really give philosophically objective treatment to both sides of the issue. Again, this is forgivable, as the book is meant to be succinct, and approachable for the layman, but the natural laws are not known to be descriptive to the degree of certainty with which he seems to state they are.Let me go into detail. First off, the "natural laws" aren't even what Armin wanted to discuss in this chapter. He wanted to discuss "the laws of nature." These are two completely different things, but to someone who maybe doesn't have the philosophical background (academically or autodidactically), these are easily confused. I think this small slip up belies Armin's unfamiliarity with the arguments for prescriptive laws, and thus became my only major qualm with the book.It's a fact that about 76% of professional philosophers are atheists, or are inclined towards atheism. This was demonstrated by the PhilPapers survey recently conducted amongst our top philosophical minds. But it's also a fact that out of 931 correspondents to the question of whether the laws of nature are Humean or non-Humean, 532 said that they are non-humean, or in other words, that they are prescriptive. Only 230 out of 931 said they are descriptive (Humean), and only 169 were "other." Even if you add the non-non-humean votes, that still comes out to 42.9%.So while it's not a fact that the laws are either way, it is not as cut and dry as Armin presents it. I realize that there may be theistic baggage attached to a philosophical view that the laws are prescriptive, but there are reasons for professional philosophers to believe this. One of the most popular? The miracle argument.It would certainly be a miracle, by Armin's definition, that the laws of nature (not natural laws) are only descriptions of how the world is, rather than prescriptions of how the world will be. Why? Because EVERY TIME we test a given law, it turns out to be true. That's why we call it a law. It would be a miracle that it's just a description, because if it were, that means there is a chance that that law will not uphold. Now we're not going to get into the difference between metaphysical and epistemic probability, but they do uphold when we test them. Every time. 100% of the time we test a law, it turns out to be true, but we don't want to say that it is an intrinsic part of the universe (that it is only a description from our mind)? I find that dubious. Obviously, there are other reasons to be a non-humean, but I'm just trying to speak concisely to a lay audience.No material object can travel at light speed. That's not something that is alterable, or just a description. It cannot happen, because that particular law prevents it. The law is prescriptive, but it doesn't necessarily come from a law-giving mind. It just means that, according to non-humeans, there is a metaphysical structure underling physical reality, which is in actuality, not very farfetched. Again, this is not scientific fact. This is a philosophical position, but there is much justification for this position.I realize this is getting a little deep for the purposes of a review, but it should be noted that this particular chapter had me shaking my head in disagreement. It's not necessarily that Armin is wrong, but that he could have gone in other directions with his argument. He is willing to concede (in argument) that there may be a mind that creates the laws, but that it has no purpose beyond creating these laws. Why not just say that the laws of nature could be part of a rich metaphysical structure made up of mathematical objects that exists more than abstractly? I'm sure Armin would say that mathematical objects are only abstracts of our mind, but again, I would call this into question too. For the laymen reading, abstract means existing only in our mind, sort of like tools for describing the universe (hence Armin's position that laws describe). In opposition to this would be "metaphysically existing" laws and number.The truth is, just because you're an atheist, it doesn't mean you have to be a materialist. There are things that "exist" non-physically, or so I, and many professional philosophers will contend. And there is a certain irony in saying that abstract objects like laws of nature and mathematical entities are only found in minds. Namely, that it requires a mind to create them, which sounds an awful lot like theistic claims that there is a mind required to "create" these objects, which probably lead to Armin's allowing that there may be a mind that creates the laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not misunderstanding the position of humeans, I'm just saying that there is a poetic irony here.But as an atheist, you can be more nuanced than that. You can say that the laws of nature are prescriptive, but that they don't need a mind to exist in. The number 2, as in, the character "2," may not exist without human minds, but what "2" represents is not only true, but arguably a metaphysically existing object. That means it is timeless and spaceless. 2+2 is always 4. A=A is always true. If the laws of logic and hence math are necessarily true, that means they don't require our world (of spacetime) to be true. And if that is the case, then that means they can exist, naturally, without us to think them up. Not to mention, there is what is known as the "indispensability argument," which essentially says we should be committed to the existence of the objects that support our best scientific theories. Well, if you didn't already know, theoretical physics is all math. And this understanding of these mathematical objects allows us to send people to the moon and back. It's not a miracle that these mathematical "descriptions" of reality are true. These mathematical objects are not just abstractions in our mind that seem to fit the universe. They really are part of a discoverable metaphysical structure. Not by empirical science per se, but by pure logic. They exist. Existence doesn't mean "has a physical form." Existence means to "have objective reality or being." The same thing goes for laws of nature. If we're using them in our best scientific theories, we should be committed to their metaphysical existence; and not just say, "oh hm, yeah, it just happens to be the case that the system -called math- that we devised is so accurate that it can predict the path of comets years in advance. Oh yeah, but we evolved for life on the african savannah, not to grasp math or logic intrinsically, but eh, don't worry- our math is still so precise to the nth degree, and allows us to do amazing things."No. Just... no. There is no coincidence that our brains were somehow able to devise a system that so matches the universe's inner-workings so precisely. We can predict the path of a comet because math and logic (as objects) are inherent to the world. The reason we can't "sense" these metaphysical objects is because our evolution dictated (metaphorically speaking of course) that it wasn't necessary for us to grasp such things. It was completely unnecessary for our survival. That's why metaphysics is so unintuitive to us, but why we can still grasp them conceptually in some manner. It's unintuitive because we were never "meant" to have shot rockets to the moon (as in, the environment we evolved in did not select for that ability), but we can still grasp them "conceptually" with our terrestrially evolved brains because they actually, objectively exist.Anyway, last statement: a prime-mover may not necessarily be a god. It could be something like the Tao or Brahman, two "things" that aren't labeled "supernatural" nor have wills or minds or anything of that manner. And the laws of logic and mathematical objects could exist within such an entity. This is just an alternative view. You can still be an atheist and be a taoist. I'm going to end things here, but trust me, atheism is more nuanced than mild-nihilism. Just saying.After all is said and done, Armin accomplished what he set out to do. Provide a book that will get people thinking, help get the critical faculties of theists and agnostics going, and refresh the minds of atheists. 4 stars.

Growing up, we were surrounded by Catholic families. Since my mother was worried about what they would "think" about us, she forced me to go to our Lutheran church and catechism classes so I could be "confirmed." That's where the debate ensued as I questioned the preacher because I didn't buy the "story." I've continued to question this religion doctrine...ALL religions...since then. I believe that religion is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people on this planet and probably accounts for most of the conflict in every country.When are people going to realize that religion exists for one reason: To CONTROL the masses! And boy, are they ever controlled. All these religions have "rules" to live by, and the faithful follow them lock step without question. I say, "Believe what you wanna believe" when speaking to the indoctrinated religious fools, and, yes, they ARE fools since they never question anything!I choose to NOT believe in some invisible magic man sitting in the sky watching every move I make. I LOVE this book...it hits the bullseye dead center. I lent it to my nephew, who is also an Atheist. He attempted to get his mother (my sister) to read it, and she flatly refused. She is a convert to Judaism after being raised Lutheran. To her, the Jewish religion is the only true religion. Now, doesn't every religion feel that way? LOL It's always "My god is better than your god" group thinking.I've also encountered many individuals throughout my life who were religious and had an air of superiority like they were better and smarter than me. Well, then, explain to me why people say they were "spared" by god when some tragedy occurs. Why did your "god" allow it to happen in the first place? NO ONE ever thinks about that one.Thank you, Armin, for this book. It's the absolute best book on Atheism that I've ever read, short and sweet, concise and to the point with plenty of references.

Brief and summary, but clearly written, demolition of twenty of the most common arguments for the existence of a deity who created and controls the cosmos. When stripped of rhetoric and laid out in a plain fashion, the inadequacy of these arguments becomes clearly evident. It is not possible to put forward an absolute proof of the non-existence of a god (or gods), because it is logically impossible to prove a negative, but the discussion certainly leaves the most common arguments for one tattered and limping. The author is from a Muslim background and often uses material from Islamic sources to illustrate his points, but this does not weaken the argument against Christianity, since all of the Abrahamic religions share presuppositions that fare poorly under logical analysis. Some of the arguments might not be quite as applicable to non-Abrahamic traditions, but most of them retain their force. The only major defect in the work is that its typesetting is not very expertly done, which can result in some odd word spacing that makes a few lines difficult to read. This, however, is not a major point.

Amazing book. I really enjoy the fact that the author goes straight to the main arguments used by believers to justify their beliefs. Each chapter deals with one of these arguments and successfully reveals their weaknesses. I’ll keep this book handy so that I can access whenever I need.

Short, compressed and precise in writing, this book serves as a good beginners guide for anyone wants to know about atheism. The 20 points cover all the arguments an atheist face in everyday life. Quick to read and to the point.Also, many atheist will resonate with the writer's personal journey to atheism. I am sure that a lot things and doubts the writer went through is also similar to many atheist across the world.

Excellent book. And intelligently and articulately argued and explained. I'd like to make several points:If there is a God, then why doesn't he - or why has he never - made himself known to us, and do so in such a way that no-one on the planet could be in any doubt that he exists. Wouldn't the very fact that he did so transform the world and our reality. Of course it would, so why has he never done so. That said, why didn't he do so in the first place, then there would never have been anything to transform.The best way I can make my second point is like this: If *I* were God, there is no way I could ever stand back and do nothing to prevent wars, for example, or the Holocaust(s), or famines, or millions of children dying every year from malnutrition and Vitamin A deficiency etc, etc, etc. Or slavery, or dire poverty etc. And yet what is the history of Man..... war, war, war and MORE war. Why?! What is the point! Does it serve any purpose? Is there some point in letting all that pain and suffering and devastation just go on and on and on, century after century after century!And I really can't get my head round why God would have life evolve over hundreds of millions of years before intelligent life started to evolve (and is now very much in the process of destroying the very planet that sustains him and her), and poison and pollute and rape and plunder our collective Home. Or create a reality in which every minute of every day, billions of creatures are killed and eaten (or eaten alive) by billions of other creatures (including Man, who is also destroying the habitats of our fellow creatures on a massive scale), hundreds of millions of them within seconds or minutes or hours or weeks of being born into the world, It really doesn't make sense to me.And it's absurd beyond words that this God has a Heaven waiting for believers, and a Hell waiting for those that don't believe, when if he just showed himself in some way or other, then every one on the planet would know he exists and, as such, believe. OR - when unbelievers die - have them come to Heaven and then chuckle (God, that is), and say: 'Look, you were wrong!", and then welcome them.But then why wouldn't you just create heaven on earth in the first place. I know *I* would if I were God!

Au travers de 20 arguments mis en avant par les croyants pour justifier leur croyance, l'auteur réfute point par point la valeur des arguments en question. C'est simple, c'est très inspiré de la zététique avec la part belle donnée à la rhétorique et aux biais cognitifs.L'auteur est Iranien, élevé de manière intense dans la croyance musulmane et si investi à une période de sa vie qu'il a tenté de se suicider pour avoir une place garantie au paradis. Bref, il connaît sa religion dans les moindres détails et ses contradictions internes l'ont amené à se déconvertir, un péché mortel pour les musulmans.L'ouvrage reprend point par point des arguments classiques comme la complexité du monde, l'argument autoritaire de la foi. L'auteur les contredit rapidement tout en indiquant à chaque fois des sources pour aller plus loin. C'est bien fait, ça n'est pas violent, c'est simple.Attention: lecteurs français, il vous faudra un solide niveau d'anglais.Je recommande sans souci comme porte d'entrée du sujet. Il donne envie d'aller plus loin.