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

Punchy, insightful, and surprisingly thorough for such a succinct book. This is a great entry book if not equal companion to many popular atheist books that are much larger. I think it’s an excellent choice, especially for teens who feel they are alone in their non-belief, in part because it is not disrespectful and displays no arrogance. This is a straightforward, utilitarian, and thoughtful book—all without needing to offend the believer. I think in that way it is a superior book especially for younger minds or new atheists as it preaches no hate for religion, merely that one has a more thoughtful alternative to it.

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.

After being raised in a Roman Catholic school and church environment for 12 years, I lost my faith and became an atheist, at which point I transferred to a public school. Although I have been an atheist for 9 years now, my family still thinks it's a phase and I am constantly ostracized and my beliefs dismissed. My mother and I have been working on finding common ground despite our differing beliefs, and I've chosen to do so by purchasing this book. The first thing I liked about this book is that it's short, to the point, and doesn't have any unnecessary fluff. The layout of the book is essentially 20 chapters with this format: 1. Argument for Existence of God a. Counter Argument 1 b. Counter Argument 2. c. Counter Argument 3. d. Sources. It's a very simple format and the arguments are all well-written. This book does not in any way dismiss religious individuals and their beliefs. It simply points out contradictions in common arguments and offers more logical, evidence-based explanations. I do not argue with people about their faith as long as they choose to respect mine. However, for the few individuals I've met who are interested in a debate or a discussion often ask me the key questions found in this book to dismiss Atheism. As a Catholic, I never had to defend anything. I just said "I believe in God" and most people agreed with me. Now that I do not believe in God, although it is the more logical position, I'm the one who has to explain myself. (The book also provides an argument for why Atheists shouldn't have to explain themselves in the first place lol!) I had a great time reading this book, and when my Christian mother reads it, I will be posting an updated review on how that went. I will definitely be looking into Armin Navabi and the Atheist Republic.

While simple, this covers most of the common arguments you'll receive as an atheist. While there are plenty of books out there that explain it in more detail, with scientific reasons why the "god theory" falls on its face, these basic logical arguments are a great tool when trying to explain to theists why you believe what you believe. I doubt it will convert the true believers, but that really isn't the objective of the book. It's clear, concise, well-written, and covers virtually any argument for the existence of the supernatural you can imagine. Highly recommended for atheists, recommended for agnostics (primarily to debunk the silly "nothing is certain, therefore everything is possible" argument agnostics often use to pretend they aren't atheists), and anyone else with an open, critical mind. Don't expect the in-depth analysis of books like The God Delusion or God Is Not Great, but for the casual atheist or atheist who just wants the nuts and bolts answers to a determined theist in their life, this is a great book to summarize the beliefs you probably already had but just couldn't put the words to.

As you can see by the picture provided, this book has been read through and revisited thoroughly. I purchased this book new from Amazon in pristine condition and have taken it with me on various occasions and through many trips. My cat (affectionately nicknamed “Satan” for her sunny disposition) has also deemed it her favorite to chew on (as you can see in the photo). While I have been an atheist since childhood, I didn’t start reading books regarding atheism until my mid twenties, and even then works from Dawkins and Hitchens take up a lot of time as I then have to go down a rabbit hole of research and my ADD brain gets distracted. This book does an excellent job of voicing the main arguments against a “higher power” easily and without leaving the average reader feeling out of their depth. Navabi does an excellent job of focusing on the main points, which entices the reader to feel comfortable into delving into their own research when they’re ready to do so. I’m looking forward to more books from this author in the future!

The book was easy to read, a bit too easy in my opinion. I was waiting for a more solid topic, like for example “God’s existence is proven by the bible” or something of that nature, and then go on and methodically take that claim apart. I came across many Christian believers who used this argument a lot and it seemed to be their fundamental piece of so called “evidence”. I guess the same thing can be said about other “holy scriptures”. At the end of the day a lot of writing in those scriptures feels nothing more than some primitive, naive and “fabricated” stories.

Whether or not God exists is a debate that never ends and it has been the topic of philosophical discussion for centuries. Some of the reasons in favor of belief are better than others, but most are irrational in every way. This book devotes its pages to twenty common arguments in favor of belief, showing why each is incorrect. Starting with the argument used by those who believe intelligent design, this book picks apart these common reasons for belief and, in simple, easy to understand language, shows why each of them is illogical, irrational, fallacious, or a combination of the above. The book avoids using complex philosophical jargon, and this is easily one of its strongest points. You won’t need to have an online dictionary open in order to understand what this book is trying to say. The language is clear and written in a way to be easily understandable. Most of us have heard these twenty arguments before and depending on your own experience with this type of philosophical debate, you may not read anything here that you haven’t heard previously. But even if you are experienced at this type of debate, the responses in this book are useful. They provide additional ammunition and approach things from angles that other books on the subject don’t necessarily take. Another reason to like this book is that it is written in a respectful, non- condescending way. Even those who are devout believers will find things to learn from reading this guide and it could even help them develop their own counter- arguments. It’s written in a nice, factual way and is non- offensive. Of course, the more extreme among us will consider it blasphemous regardless, but it is still a book that most anyone can benefit from. Resolving the God issue isn’t an easy one and the debates will likely continue indefinitely. Whether or not you consider yourself a believer, there is something to be gained from reading this book. It doesn’t go into great detail and leaves you wanting more, but it’s definitely a good starting point for understanding the common reasons for belief in God and why most all of them fail the simplest tests of logic and reason.

This is an excellent resource for atheists and for those who have questions about gods and religion. It's laid out in 20 short chapters with clear, concise, logical responses to those who claim the existence of a god. It's well-laid out so you can easily go back to refresh what has been covered. Though I only finished the book about a week ago, I've gone back a few times to reread some parts that stuck in my mind. It's also the type of book you don't have to read from cover to cover (though I did); you can use it as a reference when needed. This is especially useful if you're ever involved in online discussions about faith. As an atheist, I've used many of these responses in past discussions, but there were a few, such as the chapter on how the laws of logic supposedly prove the existence of a god, that I hadn't come across and found enlightening. The book is not preachy, it does not belittle those who have faith, and it presents the responses in a way that can be used respectfully and without malice. For those who have the view that atheists are angry folk, Mr. Navari will put that to false assumption to rest. The final chapter where Mr. Navari retells his path from devout Muslim to atheist is also very interesting and as someone who grew up in a very religious household, it resonated with me. If you're an atheist or agnostic, you should find this book very useful. If you're a person of faith, chances are you know an atheist, and this will give you a great insight into their mindset which will allow you to have more meaningful discussions on the subject of faith and gods.

Authors like Hume, d'holbach, and contemporary like Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins; all have awesome books to read, but for someone who is just starting to explore the unbelieving point of view, it might be too heavy as an introduction. This book is a great approach for someone who wants to start affirming the idea that after all, God is more likely a collective delusion than the omnipotent never appearing entity that some many people worship.

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.

Great book! In the last year, I happend to be drawn into Christianity because I became friend with a lot of radical Christians and fell in love with one of them. Desperately I tried to adopt their believes and make sense of what the Bible says. Luckily, I realized, how this took away my happiness and mental health and how I started to doubt myself, science and everything. I felt, how my life is loosing its sense and how, the deeper I got into Christianity, the less sense it made. I saw the contradictions and the biases of the people around me and had the struggle of my life. In many discussions with my new friends, I heard the arguments that are debunked in this book and they made me stop questioning for some time. But the contradictions were too obvious. When reflecting about my change, I realized, that I took the wrong direction, when going into Christianity. It made me less happy, joyful but filled me with a fear to “fail” loving a god and therefore ending in hell. My life got more stressed, more depressive and I hit the emergency break and exited that environment and the circle of friends. Needless to say, that it was very hard. My new friends really thought, I made the mistake of my life. And of course, also my relationship with the radical Christian girl could not survive my newfound sanity. For many months I struggled with thoughts like “what if, Christianity is true and I am just too blind to see it?”, “what if, I really made the biggest mistake of my life?” This book and the Atheist Republic helped me to heal from this fears and the Christian indoctrination. The book is a good short read that debunkes all of the arguments that I came across while trying to make sense of Christianity. In my opinion, it is a must-read for every believer, atheist or person struggling with their believes or the religious influence in their life! Thank you for this book! I can’t wait to read the next one 😊

The reviews complaining that this book hasn’t presented any new ideas/information miss the point. This is THE most concise overview of atheist ideas you can get. It’s not meant for digging deep, leave that up to Dawkins, Hitchens et al. For the average Joe, not looking to get into academic theses about theology, this is the best book to start off with. It’s short. You can read it quickly. The language is far more accessible and easier to follow than others. Even easier to read than Sam Harris. The author references famous and more academic texts throughout, at the end of each chapter. So if you want more in-depth reading on a point he raises, you will be able to follow it up. It’s the best book to leave lying around your house if you’re hoping to accidentally-on-purpose introduce other people to atheism. Someone could pick it up, open any page, read a couple of lines and instantly have their worldview challenged, whereas with other writers they’d need to absorb a page or a long chapter for the same result. It’s probably the best starting point because it covers absolutely every conceivable argument so clearly and so concisely. Then it points you in the direction of further reading to back itself up. It’s less self-indulgent than other atheist books, the author does not seem to relish in tearing religion apart, he is very objective in his approach. I loved it. I think it’s the best starting point for someone looking to build a library of atheist texts. Also if you find yourself debating with an everyday theist, this is THE book to have on hand. Thanks to the way it’s laid out, you can dip into it and instantly find the part you need to counter any theist argument. It will help you to communicate your ideas really clearly and effectively.