Trent Horn: Answering Atheism.

San Diego: Catholic Answers Press (2013)

This book is a compromise between being too shallow and too deep in presenting the arguments for the existence
of God. The presentation is respectful of the atheist and the agnostic; therefore, this book can be recommended to
them for reading. God is identified as the supernatural creator of the universe.
We cannot prove that God exists in the sense of a mathematical proof but only in the sense of a jury trial in which
the evidence points to His existence. Because the proofs are not compelling1, we should respect and acknowledge
that sincere, intelligent people are on both sides of the existence-of-God issue (Pg 42).

Many atheists assume there is no God because what they see does not agree with their pre-conceived notions of
how God would operate. For example, atheists such as Christopher Hitchens concludes that there is no God
because a god would not allow suffering. Dinesh D’Souza accused Hitchens of believing that the “absence of
evidence is the evidence of absence” to claim that God is absent. Horn does think that proving a universal negative
is possible, even beyond self-contradictory statements such as “There are no square circles” (47). In any argument
about God, in addition to the logic, the premises must be studied (59). A typical illogical atheist’s argument is
“Some religions are obviously false; therefore, all religions are false.”
Atheist argue along one or more of the following lines:
1. Man’s brain has evolved such that we desire a savior from the hardships of physical existence.
2. Belief in God is an emotional reaction to the way we were raised (60).
3. We don’t know the creation process; therefore, we don’t know how matter originated.
4. God is not all-knowing because He does not know fear.
5. God is not omnipotent because He cannot control our free-will actions.
6. God is not a person because He does not have a body; therefore, He does not have a brain (70).
7. God is not perfect because He created to fill something He lacked.
8. An all-good God would not allow evil. The theist’s answer that suffering is a mystery is not an adequate
response. “Evil comes from sin” and “God brings good from evil” are also not adequate (80).
9. If God were good, we would all be in heaven rather than on earth.
10. Quantum fields can create matter (117). (But who created quantum fields?)
The atheists point about evil (Item 8) is perhaps the most difficult to answer. We must distinguish between moral
evil (sin) and physical evil (e.g., sickness). In either case, the existence of God and evil is not contradictory (83).
God created everything as good, including man’s free will. Man’s misuse of free will results in evil2 (86). He made

1
Horn does not use the word “compelling.” FAC has Thomistic textbooks that say that Thomas’ philosophical proofs are
conclusive, but can be rejected by the close-minded.
2
FAC ideas: Our understanding of suffering clearly depends on our understanding of human life, here and after death;
however, there are secondary benefits from suffering that all can appreciate:
1. Suffering reminds us of our vulnerability and our dependence on others – especially on God.
2. Suffering reminds us to have a concern for our neighbors, thereby drawing us out of ourselves. In our imperfect
state on earth, we would all become selfish if suffering weren’t present.
3. Suffering associated with our own behavior reminds us to correct our behavior.
Those who believe in God can appreciate also:
1. Suffering reminds us of the temporary aspects of worldly life and the permanent aspects of eternal life.
2. Suffering enkindles hope, especially the hope for heaven, for life after death. This hope overcomes the dismal
existence of a pointless life.
3. God is good. He permits suffering and evil only when a greater good will result, just as persecutions have always led
to increased faith. Good people might die if God foresees that they would later turn evil and lose their souls if they
live.
4. Self-imposed suffering, such as the fasting that Christ did and foretold for His followers for the time after His
ascension into heaven, has many of the benefits of all suffering; however, it is surely less beneficial than the willing
acceptance of the suffering that God allows.

1
us free so we could be rewarded. God may have a good reason to permit the physical evil of suffering. For
example, it might build character (91). It might lead to a greater good, perhaps many years from now. The atheist
has difficulty defining evil because he has no standard. He must first admit that there is a standard of what ought
to be, some grand design. But the grand design is what theists use to prove the existence of God. Horn says that,
in the end, we must admit that reconciling evil with a loving God involves a mystery. We don’t know the long-term
outcome of the evil. The presence of evil does awaken society (100) and does draw the sympathizer out of himself
(101). God’s existence does give us reason to hope that injustices are eventually remedied. Atheism does not (98).

Horn states that St. Thomas’ arguments require more text than the book permitted; therefore, he restricted himself
to the strongest arguments. The arguments start with the basic facts about the world and demonstrate that God is
the best3 explanation of those facts.

Horn’s first proof is based on anything at all existing (108). Some atheists claim that the universe has always
existed; however, they are not answering the question of why it is existing rather than not existing. Everything that
exists has an explanation for its existence either in itself -- inherent4 to itself -- or outside of itself. A triangle cannot
be imagined that does not have three sides, three sides being inherent to a triangle; therefore, its existence is
explained as a planar figure with three sides. We can imagine that the universe does not exist. There is no inherent
need for the universe to exist. Therefore, the universe must be contingent. Its existence is contingent upon an
outside being, which we call God5. God differs from every other being because existence is inherent in God;
existence is not inherent in any other being. The existence of any being other than God is contingent. The most
plausible option is that the universe has an explanation, that this explanation exists beyond space and time, that
this explanation explains its own existence, and that it is a necessary and infinite being (119).

Horn’s second proof is based on there being a start time for the existence of the universe (123). In 1925, Fr.
Georges Lemaitre (130) proposed the Big Bang theory for the development of the universe. The Hubble Space
Telescope and the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite gave important evidence for the Big Bang. The Kalam6
Cosmic Argument (KCA) states that anything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. This premise is
based on observation of the physical world. Nothing that we observe did not have a start time. If the universe,
which we observe, existed an infinite number of years ago, after 1000 years, it would still be an infinite number of
years from today. Today would never occur7. It must have had a start time. In addition, all physical processes are
at least slightly inefficient. Over an infinite amount of time, there would be no available energy. Everything would
be at a standstill. Because the universe had a start time, it had to have a cause – God, who has always existed.
There was no time or space before the Big Bang (133). Because something that doesn’t exist cannot cause
anything, the universe could not have caused itself to come into existence (138). God existed timelessly before the
universe. He created time and the universe simultaneously (143). God must be a person because an impersonal

5. God allows suffering as an opportunity for us to participate in the atonement for sin. We should not miss this
opportunity.
6. Suffering for another fosters love for that other, including God. Just think about how suffering to meet the needs of
our children helps us love them.
God created the world good, without suffering. Man sinned. With sin, came suffering. If man had remained perfect
and virtuous, we would not need suffering to focus our attention on eternity, to draw us out of ourselves. Although
these ideas will not relieve suffering, they can put suffering into a beneficial perspective.
3
Horn writes “best”, not “only.”
4
Horn does not use the word “inherent.”
5
Horn uses the word “God” but does not (yet) describe God (e.g., as a person).
6
Kalam means “speech” in Arabic. The argument can be traced to the Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali in the 13th century,
before the “closing of the Muslim mind” about which Robert Reilly wrote.
7
FAC: I call this “stuck in infinity.”

2
object cannot choose to create a non-eternal universe8 (140). He is powerful enough and intelligent enough to
have created the universe (144).

Horn offers the design of the universe as another proof of the existence of God (147). The order found in the
universe requires a designer. This is the teleological argument, telos being a Greek word that means end or goal –
designed with a goal in mind. Evolution could be part of the design (149). Scientists have found that there are
many constants and conditions governing the physical universe that are so finely tuned that a slight change in their
values would make life impossible (150). For example, the gravitational force, the strong nuclear force that
contains the protons inside atoms, the density of matter in the first seconds of the universe’s existence, the
cosmological constant that is inherent to the expansion rate of the universe, and the low level of entropy (disorder)
in the universe immediately after the Big Bang. The fine-tuning argument shows that the universe is precisely
designed – precisely designed such that only with these constants could life exist (164). These constants could not
evolve. They have existed from the very beginning and have not changed over time (167). There are so many
constants that the probability that their occurring simultaneously is nearly zero – equal to getting fifty royal flushes
in succession while playing poker. Note that, because God is the simplest being imaginable, or an infinite undivided
mind, then it is not necessary to ask who designed God (159).

The fine-tuning argument is sometimes opposed by claiming ours is perhaps the only universe that survived among
almost an infinite number of alternatives. There is no evidence for the speculative “multi-verses” hypothesized by
various atheists (173). No explanation is offered as to the origin of such multi-verses and their physical constants.

Horn offers the universal conscience as another proof for the existence of God9 (177). If there were no God, all
things would be permitted (177). We find, however, that objective moral truths exist, although not every person
agrees what they are. All societies agree that bravery is to be honored and cowardice to be despised. All societies
agree that justice and honesty are to be promoted, at least within the society (184). These ideas form what is
called Natural Law. Moral dilemmas arise for which there is no easy answer; however, these do not contradict the
idea that there are objectively moral truths (185). The only logical explanation for these objectively moral truths is
their institution by a person above all other persons; namely, God (193). God is all goodness10; therefore, He would
never command that a moral evil be committed (212). Man might propose sources for morality such as society’s
convention or utilitarianism or logical consistency, but these do not identify the ultimate source of the moral
obligation (198). The Laws of Nature tell us what happens; the Natural Law tells us what ought to happen (204).
Without God, moral actions are ultimately judged by feelings, if only the feeling that a certain moral code is good
and, possibly, with each individual judging for himself.

We come to believing in God usually by experiencing Him11 (217). Beware of those who change the point of the
argument from whether God exists to some aspect of religious history (e.g., Galileo) (221). Keep the conversation
in search of the cause and purpose of life (226).

We should encourage atheists to believe in God and in His mercy (229), searching among the religions for the true
God as revealed by history and reason (231). Once found, follow Him (232).

The first of three appendices summarizes St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God:
1. Motion: Everything that changes has a cause for the change, except for the Prime Mover.
2. Causation: Everything that exists has a cause for its existence, expect the First Cause.

8
FAC: I don’t see a proof of this statement.
9
FAC: This is C. S. Lewis’ favorite argument in Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man.
10
Evil is the lack of goodness. God lacks nothing; therefore, God is good (215).
11
Belief in God can be fortified by philosophical argument. In addition, a philosophical argument can remove mental
barriers that the non-believer has.

3
 3. Contingency: If the universe had existed forever, after an infinite amount of time every contingent thing
would have ceased to exist, having exhausted the possibility of going out of existence.
4. Gradation: We observe that some people are better than others. Something/someone is perfect in every
respect
5. Design: Something/someone had to design the universe. Designs have a purpose: So people could get to
heaven (Final Cause)

The second appendix presents objections to KCA:

1. “Nothing” need not conform to any laws; therefore, nothing can produce something. Reply: The laws of
nature are descriptions of what we observe as happening, not prescriptions or restrictions.
2. Imagination can generate something (an image) from nothing. Reply: We cannot imagine something
“coming” from nothing; i.e., being caused by nothing.
3. Quantum physics: Physicists have seen “virtual particles” come from a vacuum. Reply: Even perfect
vacuums contain fields.
4. Infinity: If the past cannot be infinite, then God can’t be infinite. Reply: Saying the God is infinite is actually
saying that God has no limits. Saying the past cannot be infinite is actually saying that it has a limit.
5. Infinity: There are an infinite number of infinitesimal distances that we easily traverse. Reply: The product
of the infinite number of steps and Infinitesimal distances is a finite number. The finite number cannot be
infinite.
6. No beginning: The past had no beginning. Reply: Once in infinity, you are stuck in infinity.
7. Heaven: If the past can’t be infinite, heaven cannot be infinite. Reply: Heaven will never arrive at infinity.
8. Start: Nothing ever begins to exist. Reply: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that what currently
exists as matter plus energy is conserved.

The third appendix summarizes a few cosmological theories:

1. The universe has been expanding and contracting periodically forever. Reply: The Second Law of
Thermodynamics states that all processes cause a loss in available energy, so the expanding and
contracting would have stopped after an infinite amount of time.
2. The Big Bang was not the beginning. Reply: At the present time, we know only what happened a short time
after the Big Bang. We do not know the physics of the first moment.
3. In 2003, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin shows that in an expanding universe, the velocity must increase going
back in time; however, the velocity is limited to the speed of light. There must have been a beginning.
4. Victor Stenger disputes the fine-tuning argument, but Horn says the arguments and counter-arguments are
beyond the scope of the book. Stenger seems to deny observed reality.