The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Existence of God
Open accessAbstract
This book assesses the worth of arguments for and against the existence of God. Evidence confirms (makes more probable) an explanatory hypothesis in so far as (1) given the hypothesis the evidence is to be expected, that is the hypothesis makes the evidence probable, (2) the evidence is not otherwise to be expected, (3) the hypothesis is simple, and (4) it fits with background knowledge (i.e., knowledge about how things behave in neighbouring fields of enquiry). When we are assessing hypotheses (such as theism, the hypothesis that there is a God) purporting to explain everything, there will be no background knowledge. Theism is a very simple hypothesis. If there is a God, there is some reason to expect that he will create a universe, with laws of nature, leading to the evolution of humans (bodies connected to souls), who often have experiences which seem to them experiences of God. It is most improbable that all this evidence would exist if there was no God. Taken together therefore all this evidence makes it probable that there is a God. The occurrence of evil, whether produced by humans or natural processes, does not significantly diminish that probability.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument
Barnes, L. A. (2019) · Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.042 · Cited by 55
Medhananda, S. (2022) · The Monist · doi:10.1093/monist/onab025 · Cited by 37
The nomological argument for the existence of God
Hildebrand, T., & Metcalf, T. (2022) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12364 · Cited by 38
Cosmopsychism and the Problem of Evil
Cawdron, H. (2024) · Sophia · doi:10.1007/s11841-023-00965-0 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Swinburne, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Swinburne, Richard
- ORCID
- Swinburne, Richard
- Venue
- Philosophical Books
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2004-03-25
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 16-17
- ISSN
- 0031-8051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169392938
- Cited by
- 916
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 41
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Philosophical Books (publishedVersion)
- Analysis Claves de Pensamiento Contemporáneo (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- existence of God, theism, proof of God's existence, arguments against the existence of God, probability of evidence, prior knowledge, problem of evil
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review