onday, February 2, marked the date of the first philosophical debate at las College between old oppo- , Dr. Robert Nicholls. Douglas e) and Mr. Michael Horner, MA ity Western). These two men had ed each other at the University of a, while Horner was completing asters degree and Nicholls his ral dissertation, on the question of lous ethics versus secular ethics: system is the most sound. The ion at the February 2 debate was more inflammatory: does God e format of the debate was tforward, with the theist (god ) side starting the event. Each er made a twenty minute presenta- ollowed by an eight minute al and a further six minute ation/rebuttal. Horner argued that Nicholls was taking the atheist the burden of proof was on his ders, since being an atheist means ing knowledge that God does not t exist. Horner's theist argument simpler one: all he needed to do gue that God was the best ation given the available evidence. this postmodern world of scientific macy it must have been a shock to itiates at the debate to hear that t defensible position was the t side. The truth, in the world of sophy, is that when someone makes wledge claim that says such-and- xists or does not exist, then that nm must make an airtight argument port their case. If you wish to the opposition of that position it becomes easier to substantiate ase because all that you need to ish your contention is that your the inference to the best sugges- t least that is what Horner nded, but we will return to this a little later in this piece. rner broke his argument down into parts. The first was that God is a ient explanation for the existence ective morality. The second was smological argument (argument od is the First Cause of the se) which simply put states that the universe began from a single t (i.e. The Big Bang Theory) and ing that is caused needs some- to cause it, then God is the ent explanation for the beginning universe. The last was what is the teleological (the argument esign) or the position that since iverse exhibits enormous complex- id seems to suggest the existence of ner that planned all of the d interdependence of cosmic and systems we can observe, therefore e case that God is the best ce as to why things are this way. e of these arguments are original losophically sophisticated, but to ience of mostly ignorant specta- is is not to be strictly construed ght, but only partially as one) they to present a strong case. For e who has taken Philosophy 103, mology (Theory of Knowledge), losophy 152, Metaphysics (with Ouyang, as he teaches the course imer in the primarily modern ches to the above arguments, st others. Other philosophy } UJ tu f Ee ‘a&e@op.douglas.be.ca faculty approach the subject differently.) the above three arguments are dealt with as an introduction to the question of God's existence and all of them are shown to be logically invalid. Nicholls argued that to say that God is necessary as a grounding for an argument for the existence of objective morality is the same as saying that when water boils and reaches the evaporation point there are little pixies that help the water molecules float. In short, this is an unnecessary burden to the argument. At least two philosophers, Immanyel Kant and John Stuart Mill for example, derived ethical systems, the Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism respec- tively, that are entirely objective in their construction. If these two philosophers were able to develop objective ethical systems without referring to any religious doctrine or personal spiritual/ mystical experiences of God, then the argument that God is a sufficient explanation for the existence of objective morality is invalid. (An argument is invalid if its conclusion is not derivable from its premises, or if you can derive a different conclusion from the premises than what is originally intended.) The second argument posits that because everything in the universe is caused and that the universe, or at least as it is currently believed, had an identifiable beginning (i.e. the Big Bang Theory), or point of origin in time, the cause of the Big Bang must have been God. On the surface this argument seems like it might have some strength, but it suffers from the same troubles that the argument for objective morality suffers: why God? There does not seem to be any need to ascribe a supernatural agency for a seemingly natural phenom- enon, albeit a possible phenomenon of a singularly unique nature. (The Big Bang is not even a universally accepted scientific doctrine: it is itself only another probability based theory that may be replaced in the future by a better theory.) The last argument advanced by the theist side was the design argument (or teleological argument), which argues that because of the mind boggling improbability of the natural occurrence of the exact conditions necessary for the beginning and development of complex bio-organic life on Earth, the best explanation for the existence of and maintenance of these conditions must be God. This argument seems to have the highest probability of success until we examine it more closely. If we change the word God to cosmic winds containing known mutagens, which is precisely what Nicholls did, then the argument seems equally valid. The only rejoinder Horner could offer was that if you _ accept the position that mutation due to solar radiation caused the exact condi- tions necessary in every instance in the development of life on this planet, then you would have to concede that the idea is less probable, given the myriad conditions needed at every stage of the development of the biosphere when the absence of the exact conditions at any given step would have precluded further growth or even the extinction of any already extant life, than the idea of a vast non-metaphysical super being (e.g. God) that planned out and oversaw all of the stages of the development of life. The acceptance or rejection of either of these positions depends upon the individual and the individual’s capacity Continued on page. 6 Does God exist? And other small uestions in the postmodern world Bak Doug Pryde, CGA works for municipal government in Penticton. He’s just one of 27,000 Certified General Accountants who are managing the future. Whether they work in industry, government or serve small- and medium-sized businesses, CGAs are changing the way Canada does business. ; If you are working toward a diploma and are aiming for a career you can take pride in, add to that achievement with a CGA designation. The CGA professional accounting program combines real, practical experience with the latest developments in Internet CD technology. And that means the future is at your fingertips. You may already qualify for advanced placement in the CGA Program. To find out how the CGA Program fits into your future, call: 604-732-1211 or 1-800-565-1211 or visit our website: www.cga-bc.org Ree CGA Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia 1555 West 8th Avenue Vancouver, BC V6] 1T5 Telephone: 604-732-1211 or 1-800-565-1211 Fax: 604-732-1252 E-mail: info@cga-be.org Website: www.cga-bc.org CGA. We’RE THE Name BRAND FOR BUSINESS IN CANADA. The Other Press February 25, 1998 5 Omar Tabia Liepowitz photo