The existence of God is a much debated philosophical argument that has mystified philosophers since the age of the ‘Enlightenment.’ Many of the different arguments put forth and analysed though, have not adequately proven God’s existence. Although in order to move forward, failed arguments must be studied to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. One such argument is the Ontological Argument.
This argument was first recorded by St. Anslem (1033-1109). Descartes adapts this argument in the fifth meditation in ‘Meditations on First Philosophy.’ He first establishes that whenever he thinks about a triangle, there are certain properties that must be present in order for the form to be a triangle. Further “even if perhaps no such figure exists, or has ever existed, anywhere outside my thought” (Cottingham, 1996), recognised properties, such as “its three angles equal two right angles”, (Cottingham, 1996) remain.
He applied this reasoning to the existence of God. Descartes thinks of “a supremely perfect being” (Cottingham, 1996) just as he thinks of the triangle. This being is God and has all the properties associated with God that makes him perfect in every way. He concedes that ‘essence’ is separate from ‘existence’, since knowing the properties of something does not mean it exists. Nonetheless, he maintains that God is different and links the existence of God to the number of sides of a triangle. Hence, Descartes reasons if God did not exist, then he would not be as perfect as a God who does, which contradicts the first assumption. Thus, “God exist”. (Cottingham, 1996)
This argument appears justifiable, but the feeling that something went amok lingers. This is the viewpoint of Gaunilo, who was the first to launch his object...
... middle of paper ...
...us, if God existed, then by Descartes reasoning he would be perfect, but if he does not exist, this does not take away from his perfection. (Hospers, 1997)
Thus, based on the objections noted, Ontological Argument appears to be defective.
Works Cited
Cardinal, D. et al. (2010) Philosophy of Religion London: Hodder Murray.
Cottingham, J. (1996) Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy:With Selections from the Objections and Replies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grim, P. (1982) ‘In behalf of ‘in behalf of the fool.’’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 13, Issue 1, No. 0020-704, March 01 1982, p. 34.
Hospers, J. (1997) An Introduction to Philsoophical Analysis. 4th edition. London: Routledge Ltd.
Scruton, R. (1995) A Short History or Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
This step in Descartes method puts him in a supreme position above all error, making him perfect. When speaking of God, he incorporates his fascination with mathematics and compares God with geometry. Descartes writes, “Consequently it is at least certain God, who is a being so perfect, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can possibly be.” (Descartes, 26). Here we see that God is a complex puzzle that needs to be solved. God is compared to geometry and Descartes thinks God is a problem that he is able to figure out, like one studying a math problem. Descartes moves to Holland where he is not able to speak the language, therefore he does not need to be bothered by people and can be alone with his thoughts. Descartes is totally wrong, he removed himself from the community and believes that he is the ultimate authority in all things. We must shine the light of truth on these errors because those lacking in proper formation can be fooled into believing this is truth. Descartes minimizes God to a math problem that needs to be solved, he makes himself the authority of truth and breaks with any type of community that could provide
The meditator’s endeavor in Rene Descartes’ meditations on first philosophy is introduced through a biographical account, with which any reader can relate. Realizing how in the past he had “accepted many false claims as true” and “how everything [he] had later constructed on top of those falsehoods was doubtful”, he feels the need to “tear everything down completely and begin from the most basic foundations”. His objective is to establish a body of knowledge which is absolutely certain.
Descartes, René. "Meditation Three." Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. 24-35. Paperback.
In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...
Descartes's fifth Meditation argument for God's existence relies on an untenable notion that existence is a perfection and that it can be predicated of God. I shall first explain what Descartes's argument for God's existence is, and then present his argument in propositional form. I will then attempt to support the argument that existence is neither a perfection nor a predicate of God.
...ircle may have had a solid foundation and belief. However, I just gave you, with supporting evidence, my view of why the Cartesian circle is wrong and why I believe that Descartes was trying to make the point that God must exist in order for him or us to even have the clear and distinct perception to dwell on the idea of God, an idea that only God himself created. I hope this solves the issue of the Cartesian circle and hopefully strengthens Descartes argument of how the circle is false and he was maybe just misunderstood. My claim will stand that the Cartesian circle was just a big misunderstanding, and Descartes, by no means, interacted with the belief and structure of this falsified circle.
Descartes then explains that the idea of God is the idea of a perfect or Supreme Being. A perfect being could have set this idea in our minds. He discovers that a perfect thing exists and that perfect being is defined as God. Descartes says, “All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists.” Descartes also reveals that God is not a deceiver. Descartes knows that a perfect being has no faults. Deception depends on some defect or fault. Therefore, if a perfect being has no faults then that perfect being can not be a deceiver.
The purpose of my essay will be to examine Descartes' argument for the existence of God. First, I will discuss Descartes’ proof for the existence of God then I will critique the argument of his existence. Lastly, I will point to some complications and problems that exist within the proof. Descartes’ proof of the existence of God is presented in the Third Meditation. He shapes his argument on the proof in the Second Meditation that in order for Descartes to think he must exist. From this specific examination he realizes his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind because of the fact he had just discovered his own existence. He then creates a rule that whatever things he sees are clear and distinct, are all true. Descartes begins his proof by splitting his thoughts into four categories, which consist of ideas, judgments, volitions, and emotions. He then further analyzes these categories to decide which thoughts might consist of error.
Firstly, Descartes talks about “proofs” of the existence of God, explained in his third and fifth meditation. Meaning, his proofs are shown by experiment to prove that God exists. He reinterprets Archimedes ' saying, “required only one fixed and immovable point to move the whole earth from its place, I can hope for great things if I can even find one small thing that is certain and unshakeable (Descartes 159).” That he could shift the entire earth
Descartes affirms that he is certain that he is a thinking thing. His reasoning, however, seems to be a circular argument. Descartes knows he is a thinking thing because “in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm” (Descartes, 24). He concludes, “everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (Descartes, 24). Descartes could only know that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true if he can be certain he is a thinking thing. Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ...
Through skepticism and doubt Descartes raised a simple yet complex question, what can I be certain of if I doubt everything? Struck by all of the falsehoods he had come to believe, Descartes set out to determine through reason what was certain and able to exist beyond doubt. In order for his habitual opinions and false knowledge to not interfere with his ability to perceive things as they truly were, Descartes doubted everything. In terms of the physical body, our senses tell us that there are external ligaments and matter that come together to produce a body. However, when we are skeptical and doubt all previous knowledge, we are then deceived by our senses and the physical body cannot be proven to exist. Even while doubting the existence of the physical body, Descartes was still able to project skepticism and have thoughts of doubt. There must have been a thinking thing thinking those doubts. For this reason, Descartes concluded that though he may not be certain that the physical body exists, he can be certain that he in fact does exist, “I am, then, in the strict since only a thinking thing that thinks,” (Cottingham 5). Thought has proven to be inseparable from “I” and there must be a self that exists. While nonmaterial, self is the intellect and faculty of thought. “I think, therefore I am,” Descartes concluded to be the single most certain fact and closest statement to an ultimate truth. We can doubt all previous knowledge and beliefs, but we cannot assume that we who are able to have thoughts such as doubts, do not exist.