Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists

by Dan Barker

Since God, according to theists, is not illusory and is the perfect person, then he has perfect freedom, or so you would think. Otherwise, Christians are worshipping a robot.

Free will, if it exists, requires that you not know the future. However, if you are omniscient, you already know all of your future choices and you are not free to change what you know in advance. You cannot make decisions. You do not have a period of uncertainty and flexibility before selecting. You do not have free will.

You can’t have both free will and omniscience. If God is defined as having free will and knowing the future, then God does not exist.

If you live “outside” of temporal coordinates, then you cannot be present “inside” space-time. You are non-present rather than omnipresent. If God is defined as a nonmaterial or nontemporal being who is omnipresent—occupying physical reality—then God does not exist.

John 7:38 reports: “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” I take this to mean that those who believe in an omnipresent, totally free, all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful god are omni-aqueous: all-wet.

Chapter Eight:

Cosmological Kalamity

DOES KALAM BEG THE QUESTION?

Nature abounds with examples of complexity arising from simplicity.

(Those few theists who accept cosmology but reject biology may be picking their experts based on theology rather than science.)

Complex/simple does not necessarily translate to personal/impersonal.

Even if it is wrong (in spite of a wealth of evidence) that complexity arises from simplicity, in order for the cosmological argument to hold, theists must at least acknowledge the possibility of one or more transcendent forces that is not personal.

If they had evidence for God they wouldn’t need the Cosmological Argument at all.

IS KALAM SELF-REFUTING?

Either in or out of time, the decision of a personal agency to commit an action happens antecedent to the action itself. Even if the deciding and the acting happened simultaneously13, it would still not be true that the acting was antecedent to the deciding. Imagine God saying, “Oh, look! I just created a universe. Now I’d better decide to do it.”

Since the Kalam argument claims that “an actual infinity cannot exist in reality,” it shoots itself in the foot. Although Kalam deals with temporal succession, the same logic applies to non-temporal antecedent events, if such things are a part of reality.

If the series were infinite, then God never could have traversed the totality of his own antecedent mental causes to arrive at his decision to say “Let there be light.”

Exempting the conclusion, by definition, from the premises by excluding the supernatural (the very thing theists are trying to prove) is circular reasoning. If it is true that an “actual infinity cannot exist in reality,” then a being that is actually infinite cannot be a part of reality. In other words, the Kalam disproves the reality of a beginning-less God. If infinity is just a concept, as Kalam insists, then an infinite God is just a concept.

To say that God does not exist within space-time is to say that God does not exist.

DOES KALAM COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES?

Yet the cosmological argument treats the universe as if it were an item in its own set. The first premise refers to every “thing,” and the second premise treats the “universe” as if it were a member of the set of “things.” But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

You can’t draw an inference or law from the relationships between items in a set that applies to the set as a whole.

In order to be considered a “thing,” an object must be a part of a larger context within which and by which it can be limited. The object must be able to be “pulled away” from other objects.

In summary, in order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist? If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question? If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe and how have they been eliminated?

2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world? If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question? If no, then why doesn’t the impossibility of an ...

3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself? If not, then how can its “beginning” be comp...

Chapter Nine

Dear Theologian

Where did I come from?

If you are saying that I don’t need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don’t need the design argument at all, do you? You have already assumed that I exist. You can make such an assumption, of course, and I would not deny you the freedom. Such a priori and circular reasoning might be helpful or comforting to you, but it does me little good. It doesn’t help me figure out where I came from.

Since I can’t look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a creator. Perhaps—this is speculative, so bear with me—perhaps you created me.

Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent—that is what your readers say. Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Help me out on this.

On the one hand you use logic to try to prove my existence. On the other hand, when logic hits a dead end you abandon it and invoke “faith” and “mystery.”

You can pretend that “mystery” signifies something terribly important, but to me it simply means you don’t know.

What’s it all about?

The threat of eternal torment might scare some people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love.

How do I decide what is right and wrong?

If “perfection” equals “God,” then it is just a synonym for me and we can do away with the word. Actually, we could do away with either word. Take your pick.

Who am I?

I think we all agree that grounded reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded deity.

Thank you for reading my letter and for letting me impose on your busy schedule. Please answer at your convenience. I have all the time in the world.

Sincerely, Yours Truly

PART 3

What’s Wrong With Christianity

Chapter Ten

The Bible and Morality

The word “moral” appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does “morality,” “ethics” or “ethical.” To inquire if the bible is a good moral guide is to ask a question that originates outside the bible.

The phrase “to do right” appears throughout scripture, but this is usually followed by “in the sight of the Lord.” To do right in one’s “own eyes” is considered evil.

To the believer, questioning the morality of God is blasphemy. It implies that the “supreme judge” can be judged.