Source

This is the first article in the "Freethought Debater" series, dealing with how to debate believers. Each article will contain a succinct argument, debating tip, or observation about how to deal with defenders of religion, based on formal debates Barker has done with Christians.

This argument (FANG, for short) is one of the "coherency" approaches Barker took against John Morehead in Sacramento (August 1996) and Douglas Wilson in Delaware (March 1997).If a religious term such as "god" or "spirit" cannot be defined meaningfully, then it is pointless to argue if it exists.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.



In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.



Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires. No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.


This article was found at this library: link.
It promises to keep those that would to learn what Atheism is and is not, busy reading for a very long time. Of particular interest and in answer to another thread in the forums, is this link: Atheism & Morality

We have free will. We make our own choices but God being all knowing already knows what those choices will be. But it was still our choice, God didn't make it for us.

Yet, if one believes in the god aspect of the equation, god being all knowing already knows what those choices will be. But what choice is it really when god also creates the punishment for the choice he knows is coming!? Is that free choice, free will? Because we , being mere mortals, make our choice and god, being all knowing, knows what befalls before it even occurs!? How does one "appease" that spirit/god, then?! By choosing to act righteously, or not. When god knows all things of all people, before they do themselves!? Why then create damnation, for what one knows is to befall it's creation. And how to expect praise and worship from those it's already aware are lost to it, regardless!?

If someone has a gun to your head and says give me a dollar or I'll kill you,many will say you don't have a choice in the matter and that you have to give the gunman a dollar...but you also have the choice of not giving the dollar.

As for the rest I don't know, who knows how a god thinks?

An alternate theory could be that God chose not to know the outcomes of our choices. If he is all powerfull the he has the power to limit his own powers. This doesn't make him any less all powerful or all knowing because he still has those powers...but he just isn't using them.

cade there is no choice because if you had a choice you wouldn't want o give the dollar or be standing with a gun to your head. correct...

this is the religious construct in a nut shell, who would chose this sort of diety to worship?? One who was not given a choice...Religion is taught, one does not question because they do not wish too....my goodness religion has to market itself as the path, the one way and it also cannot ever complete its purpose, if it does, one will not need it..They have to imagine themselves as the 'truth, they aren't generally looking to beoome obsolete....they offer bait to get and keep members..

A system that is effective is not needed once it has fullfilled its function......

just because a religion has been around a long time does not mean its effective actually it is saying the opposite......selling one what they already areafter they convinced them they aren't...., got to love em.this sells tactic....... .

This is the first article in the "Freethought Debater" series, dealing with how to debate believers. Each article will contain a succinct argument, debating tip, or observation about how to deal with defenders of religion, based on formal debates Barker has done with Christians.

hehe, now they've got sites and people dedicated to non-Christian apologetics. Helping the non-believer answer questions of faith. I find this most amusing

Well PA glad you're

Atheism is far older than christianity so, given that, perhaps someone out there figured it's about time they started to get with the program. Letting other non-believers know they are not alone, even though the believer public would wish, often times, to make it appear otherwise.

And between the two camps, believers and non, and the history accorded both, believers would seem to have cause to resort to the apologist profile more so than non. Wouldn't you think!? Considering all that is claimed to be "true" myth about a god being, relative to almost any faith at all.

You have the choice to deal with situations in your own way. You do not have the choice to control others. Not being bale to control others does not mean you do not have a choice. As for the next paragraph, it is unreadable. Ive looked at it 4 times and what I can understand about it is that it is so vague it still doesn't make sense.

It's a forced choice but it is still a choice. In my example there may only seem like one choice(give the gunman a dollar) but you could take the other choice the gunman gave you and get shot...or you can make up a third or fourth option and do that. The gunman is forcing you into taking the first option of giving him a dollar...but nobody makes your choices.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

This is not true.

There is only one God and his son. The holy spirit is his active force.

There can be no free choice juxtaposed to an omniscient judge/ment.

The free will argument is orchestrated to validate the nonsense defined as a judgmental god, that made people in it's image and then cursed them to suffer the sin of it's placement upon them. Begging, all their lives, to ascend past that which god created as a blight upon them. Evoking a compliance unto a master. For fear that mantel of sin set there by that master, will weigh and suffer one for all of eternity, after life. It's the brainwashing of the submissive, as in the master slave relationship in sex. It's all the same parallel. One bows to the will of the other so they might feel rewarded by avoidance of the suffering they know so well. And for some, that condition is seen as love. Because love is a word that is enlivened by the practice that affects a feeling and then calls it so. But for one mans love, it is an example of another mans suffering. That's the icon of that faith that bleeds. The icon of suffering, from which supplication gives release.

Knowing your decision in advance does not change the fact that it is your decision. Only, if you neither fully understand the long-term dynamics of the situation nor choose to ignore knowledge of the future, it would lead to acausal effects.
The whole argument is based on nothing more than most people's inability to think beyond causality.

Interesting. In the spirit of creating an awareness of what you say most people are not so:

Life and The Nature of the Acausal

Cade there is no force in choice, in that situation my choice would be to not be in the situatiion, so you see the gunman is defining my choice so its no choice... ....this is how the world is set up...i do think free choice is a great idea but as of yet its not being experinced in humankind..wehn many can let go of this idea that they have free choice possibly we can get down to the work of actually defining choice the way we would like it, we are sheep, at best.....


We have been conditoned that we have choice but as we can see we don't....Nothing would be as it is if we actually did have a choice.....our choices are predetermined....

Here is my question:

Can someone do what contradicts the plan that god put ??!

No ..

So, everything we do, is planned by god ..

And since everything we do, is planned by god, so he can never punish us ..
And also since, he is the creator of everything, so he is also the creator of our deeds ..

I hate it when people ask a question then answer it!!!

You are completletly wrong.
God gave man free will:
to choose between good and evil; dt11:26-28 'See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse --- the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known'NIV
to seek and find God; Isa55:6-8 'Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God for he will freely pardon. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways," declares the Lord.'NIV

You still didnt answer my last post !

You just gave some so-called "evidences" from an old book !

Open your mind and your eyes.

You will clearly see my answer was 'you are completley wrong'.

Wow! That's some kind of affirmation, from a personal perspective. Completely wrong! As in, not even the merest scintilla of maybe right. Eeek. What are ya doin here. Hadeka!? If someone see's you having no idea what you're talking about. Are you there!? Hellloooooo???

A hermit was meditating by a river when a young man interrupted him. "Master, I wish to become your disciple," said the man. "Why?" replied the hermit. The young man thought for a moment. "Because I want to find God."
The master jumped up, grabbed him by the scruff of his neck, dragged him into the river, and plunged his head under water. After holding him there for a minute, with him kicking and struggling to free himself, the master finally pulled him up out of the river. The young man coughed up water and gasped to get his breath. When he eventually quieted down, the master spoke. "Tell me, what did you want most of all when you were under water." "Air!" answered the man.

"Very well," said the master. "Go home and come back to me when you want God as much as you just wanted air."

Thanks for that, it added so much to this debate I think I may have to lay down for a little while

rev20:4; 'i saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And i saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.....'

It is not God alone that judges but those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for Him and/or trusted and obeyed the word of God. It is safe to assume that those mentioned in Hebrews 11 (Sorry your on your own for that one) are the main bulk of those chosen.

In my world others words, in a book of fables and horrid projections, does not bode itself completely right at all.

And I respect your right to turn the page and read wisdom there.

All Christian faith is based on the word of God as written down by His followers from generation to generation.

Too evoke a debate about Christian beliefs you have to allow the use of the documents of the faith. Failure to allow this or continually making statements of 'fables and horrid projections' mean it will be a very one sided argument.

As it would be if I said 'Because God said so' to every argument that is made.
You can continue to make statements of why God is not real and I will continue to use the scriptures to shoot the argument down.

Edit: I forgot, I respect your right to be ignorant of the wisdom on those pages

One mans wisdom is another mans hearsay.


It's been asked numerous times before, if all is gods word why was select man permitted to define what would be bound and referred to as the word of god!? Claim it god inspired all one wishes, but it was the hands and will of men that made it come to pass, this thing so many refer to as holy writ. Gods word and scripture. As if he doffed the quill himself, after inking the page.

And then there's the matter of those other books, left out. And then there is a matter of those temples built to the god of the bible that evict from their sacred confines the old testament, completely. Or maybe one hasn't heard of new testament churches. Wonder why they're called that!? Perhaps because the new testament sought to do away with the hate in the old. And then of course there are all those denominations. That aspire to revere one god, in so many different ways. Monotheism doesn't require much imagination. The terror of god and the revelation that it doesn't have to be that way when the kingdom one sought in the old, is really within. So says the son of a god. I've read the NT. Jesus was not a bigot. That would mean a big responsibility to those that would imagine themselves christ like.

So while you see it as a battle to prove you're right, you fight alone micklemas. I see no opponent in you, or the faith you freely choose to give your only life to. It is you that believes you need to fight so as to prove you are right to believe. And in those that don't see it as you do, you see an enemy. That's on you to.

That's not my problem ...

im an atheist ..

If god exists, so everything is planned by him ... and if so ,, so there is no judgment ,, because he is the creator and planner of human deeds ...

My theory on the idea.

God knows everything? yes cause hes God, really isnt much of a question, so if God already knows everything he knew some guy was going to make a website dedicated to false teaching, half truths, and innaccurate means of thought patterns, based solely to sway people from the ultimate goal, heaven eternal life and happiness. He knew that people were going to go there and people were going to start convincing themselves this stuff because for one reason or another they decided they owe it to god, be it because of their suffering and unhappyness, or whatever, perhaps just part of this ultimate thing we are all going twards, called the future.
So the ultimate question now is, can god do this? can he send people to hell knowing full well before they existed that they were going to screw other people over, and those people screwing other people over. He created them and they created sin, so therefore indirectly god created sin.

what it breaks down to is god can do whatever he wants, He can send three trillion of us to hell and only keep one just to further the enjoyment and happiness of the one.

maybe god sets up hundreds of billions of these circumstances(universes, earths, humans) with empty shell people who he knows are going to be damned so therefore not giving them substance yet giving those who make it to heaven substance.

Maybe we all make it to heaven, or atleast the parts of us that are good and happy, while the trash gets tossed out into hell. those of us who stay good get to keep themselves the most and are more complete when they enter this eternal life.

Maybe god is us experiencing himself subjectively, as what he is and what he isnt.

Why did god not make it so adam and eve weren't robots yet still made the decision to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad? He can do anything he wants, apparently god wants this struggle we experience.

Maybe we all already know what the outcome of this experience will be, we just know it in the back of our minds.

Their is no other argument besides the one you stated:- The writers were inspired by God through the holy spirit to write an account of what they had witnessed both with bare eyes (The 4 Gospels and the book of Acts), and through visions given by God. (Revelation) the remaining books of the new testament are letters sent between the early believers. The Old-Testament is exactly the same as the Jewish Torah.
The books included in the new testament were decided by their historical accuracy compared to other contempory writings of that time, their relevance to the life and teaching of Jesus and the growth of the early church.

The remaining books that were discarded were grouped together in a collection called the Apocrypha. These books are used by some denominations to provide a backdrop of the climate and feelings of the Jewish people between the old testament and the time of Christ.

I have not heard of these 'new testament churches' any links you can provide I will certainly look into them. If they are true Christians they must hold the old testament as an article of faith.

There is as much love in the old testament as there is in the new testament, like wise hate. I know some lifelong Christians who turn white at the mention of Revelation. At the begining of Acts there is a graphic description or the end of Judas and the death of a couple that chose to decieve God.

They all have the same articles of faith. The differences are purely cosmetic (Some want to speak Latin others in their national language) or political (the church of England was formed because King Henry VIII wanted to marry his brothers widow), others due to clash of personalities (John Wesley started the methodist movement because of various problems with the hierachy of the CofE

I have either misunderstood what you mean or I do not recognize that scripture. If you recall where it is let me know

Completley right. I apologise if that is how I come across on the forum I don't mean it like that. I just tried to use the bible to defend christianity against the claims that were made. I was harsh and blunt with the first post i made, again i apologise.

I am not battling to prove I am right, only trying to make sure that the claims are correctly stated. If you persist and take on board were the arguments are refuted, eventually you will find some statements that will get christians trembling in fear. But if a young person reads the statements as they have been made so far and then uses them in the wrong place, (as you have said their are some bigoted Christians and they usually clump together), they will be mentally torn to shreds.



Trust me I am secure in my religious beliefs. It is true though that I do enjoy a good debate. Usually a group of 6 or so from the my church get together in the local and one of us will become 'devils advocate' and start a debate (which have been known to continue through the night.
That is why I know these statements that have been made will be torn to shreds.

I must also tell you that my wife is a non-believer and we have been married for 7 years, so I guess i am not that much of a zealot.

If I may (no scripture, until I get permission)
If you were God and created man, would you want people to worship you because they had to, or because they made a personal choice to do so.

I have just found a page on wikipedia about "New Testament Christian Churches of America Inc."
If this is the church you were referring to then they do hold the old testament as an article of faith. However from the quick scan i made they appear to have some questionable tenets of faith which I am going to look into a bit deeper.
In my opinion they may be dangerous due to the number of splits that have so far occured. Most churches that do that so often end up being sect setters. The secrecy and bitterness between each other results in backing away from everyone. Again i will check that a bit deeper.
From that page there is at least 2 things that may be argued to cause believers in that church to think instead of just believing.
The gift of 'tongues' is one of them. If you want more details of why they make a controversial claim then let me know.

EDIT: NEVERMIND THAT...IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN THAT CHURCH GET THEM OUT OF IT.

http://www.philocrites.com/archives/000424.html "The Bible is used for hateful purposes by people whose religion is already hateful; it is used for spiritual purposes by people whose religion is spiritual; it is used for complex and multiple purposes by people whose religion is complex and various."


What is New Testament Theology?

You can find plenty of references on Yahoo, via keyword searches like: New Testament Church , New Testament Denomination (A Call for New Testament Christianity) , etc... and find more hits.

I think that there maybe some mis-understanding about what some of these are saying and quite honestly that is scarier than if it really did say what you think it says.

Which ends with this quote:-
Abandoning the Bible to its worst meanings is like ditching Shakespeare because there's astrology in King Lear, or banning The Color Purple because there's a rape on the novel's first page, or censoring the dictionary because we don't like some of the words in the English language. The Bible is a central element in our cultural heritage. We ignore it at our peril, because other people do use it for hateful purposes, and it helps to know your enemies. But if we pay better attention to it, I believe we'll find treasure and nourishment there, too.

Also remember the Bible is used for loving purposes by people whose religion is love, and used for peaceful purposes by people whose religion is peace.

Baseball bats are used for hateful purposes by people whose morals are hateful, and for complex and multiple purposes by people whose religion is baseball, does that mean they baseball bats should be banned?



New Testament theology is exactly what it says, it is the study of God within the new testament, every minister / pastor will have done a course like this, at about the exact same time they did a course called 'Old Testament theology' which of course means the study of God within the old testament. Maybe they also did plain Theology, The study of God, which involves Old & New testament. And shocking as it may seem they may have studied biblical hebrew, so they could read the original Old testament, and Ancient Greek for the New testament.



Now I see what you mean, (don't ignore that last post though the NTCCA is a dangerous group to be with), this is not a new denomination that wants to repel or sweap aside the old testament. It is a call for all churches to reform back to the original archetypal church system as evidenced in the New Testament. It is a call that started about the same time Wesley started methodism, which was a step back towards that archetypal system. However it is not likely the basic system would be functional in this day and age.
All references made in the article A Call for New Testament Christianity regarding the names of the Church are correct, it is symbolism.

It also says:- Jesus died for his church, the bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25-33) Man throughout history has corrupted the church that Christ died for through denominationalism, by adding man-made laws to the scriptures, and by following creeds other than the Holy Bible.
That is not true of mainstream Christian denomonations. The only 2 religious groups who call themselves christians that I can say with certainty are guilty of this charge are:-
1) The Mormons (church of jesus christ of latter day saints); Not only have they added extra books but they also added the heavenly mother to go with the trinity. The holy quad I guess they would be called.
2) Jehovah's Witness; Again they have added extra books to the their bible and they do not acknowledge the trinity plus lots of other things.

By mainstream Christianity and various church watch sites both of these movements are regarded as cults and should be avoided.

who is interpreting hte bible through archiac lenses...for one there is no historical documentation that there was a jesus, second if there was he would not of been saying the messages in the way you are interpreting.... there is no possible way to know what jesus meant let alone said... You are speculating or someone told you this what was written was written moons after his death those that wrote of him did not know him....yours is opinion at best , myth conjecture but fact ....

Back On Topic.

As far as I can see, this argument falls down by confusing what is meant by "knows everything". Just what is being referred to here?

Also, underlying the FANG argument as presented is the unsupported (and unmentioned) assumption that God can only exist in this universe, where ideas such as "personal beings have free will" make some sort of sense. So is it meant that God "knows everything" inside this universe, outside this universe, or both? I suspect knowing everything inside this universe is what is meant.

If we take the hypothesis that God existed before creating/evolving this universe, including creating/evolving time, space and "everything" in it, then sure, God from outside this universe could "know everything" in this universe (all still being part of God, mind you), including all possible outcomes of our actions. This would in no way limit God's ability to exercise free-will outside this universe, if you see what I mean.

Further, it would surely be simple for such a being to "experience" this universe by also becoming/creating/evolving separate/differentiated entities (ie personal beings) living in it and having "free will". Under these circumstances God could both "know everything" in this universe and still have free will, both inside it and outside of it.

Whether God indeed could know everything both inside and outside this universe and still have free will is another question. Which is perhaps meaningless, as time and space are part of this universe (and perhaps other universes), not existing outside of it (or them). Thus there is no future, or past outside of this universe. Only the present. And thus the FANG argument falls down on other grounds.

I have a great deal of trouble trying to put these thoughts into words, as the language breaks down when trying to express what I mean. It helps to be comfortable with certain types of paradox, I guess

Rich