The Improbability of God

by Michael Martin (Editor), Ricki Monnier (Editor)

A growing number of powerful arguments have been formulated by philosophers and logicians in recent years demonstrating that the existence of God is improbable. These arguments assume that God's existence is possible but argue that the weight of the empirical evidence is against God's actual existence. This unique anthology collects most of the important arguments for the improbability of God that have been published since the mid-1900s. The editors make each argument clear and accessible by providing a helpful summary. In addition, they arrange this diverse collection of arguments for the improbability of God into four thematic groups: Part 1 contains cosmological arguments based on the weight of the evidence relative to the origin of the universe; Part 2 presents teleological arguments based on the weight of the evidence relative to the order in the universe; Part 3 deals with inductive evil arguments based on the weight of the evidence relative to the widespread and horrendous evil in the world; and Part 4 contains nonbelief arguments based on the weight of the evidence relative to the widespread nonbelief or the reasonable nonbelief in the world. The list of distinguished authors includes William Rowe, Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, Victor Stenger, J. L. Schellenberg, and Michael Martin, among others. With this new anthology as a companion to their earlier anthology, The Impossibility of God (2003), Martin and Monnier have created an indispensable resource in the philosophy of religion.

Genres: Atheism, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction

432 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2003

Reviews

[Joel Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Collection of the most important atheistic arguments in recent times. This is the only book of it's kind and is divided into cosmological, teleological, evil, and non-belief arguments for atheism. I would say this book is essential reading for people interested in philosophy of religion, especially to justify their atheism or challenge their theism.

[Pedro Bonilla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult to read at times but very thorough refutation of theistic proofs.