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 ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat God too exists" (Descartes, 34). Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas.
It is not living ordinarily and just thinking of God. The idea of God as a whole must be created by God. If humans are finite, and God is infinite, how could one possible have the thought of such an infinite being. Next, in the fourth meditation, which leads into Descartes’ thoughts on himself in God’s view. It is important to compare to the third meditation.
I will then try to argue that existence is a perfection and that as a predicate for God, existence reveal certain true about God. Ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God from a priori perspective, i.e., idea implanted in the human mind by God himself. The argument therefore depends on analytic reasoning, from premise to conclusion. Descartes believes that he has an inborn idea which he calls “innate” (p. 43). His ability to think did not cause the idea on his mind, but God’s free will to act.
The Ontological Argument The Ontological argument is a group of different philosophers arguments for the existence of God. "Ontological" literally means talking about being and so in this case, that being is the existence or being of God. The main component of the Ontological argument can be found in the Anselm’s "Proslogion" which is a short work that tries to demonstrate both the existence and the nature of God. His main aim in writing the Proslogion is not to directly prove the existence of God but to moreover, to show the relationship between faith and reason. Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief.
However, a thing cannot possess a characteristic unless it first exists. In his reply to Descartes's argument, Gassendi complains that "... ... middle of paper ... ...trying to demonstrate, namely that a most-perfect being must exist in order to be a most-perfect being. Last, predicating the existence of God as a divine attribute seems to be unhelpful in addressing His actual existence. Descartes needs to arrive at God's existence through empirical means that do not rely on a restatement of the problem in the form "if x then x" as a solution to God's actual existence. Works Cited Barnes, Jonathan.
This paper will attempt to state and explain the Cartesian Ontological Argument, its most promising lines of objection and some of the replies to these objections. Before studying the argument, it is important to notice that this type argument, unlike causal or teleological arguments, tries to be based on reason alone, not observation. Descartes considers that his a priori claims can derive the existence of God from the very concept of God. The Cartesian Ontological Argument can be formulated as follows: (1) God is that being than which nothing more perfect can be conceived upon. (2) Existence is a perfection.
To sum up, a perfect God exists. It can be seen that Descartes is only using the premise “all clear and distinct perceptions are true” as a reference for the proof, instead of the only reason for the argument. However, Descartes’s meditations fail to state the reasoning for some of his premises clearly, which makes some of the periodical conclusions hard to understand. For example, Descartes points out that “more reality in an infinite substance than in a finite one”, without showing why (Descartes 31). However, this kind of flaws does not change the fact that the meditations are using circular reference between the premises and conclusions, instead of circular reasoning.
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind. In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived.
In Meditation V, Descartes presents what is now considered the Ontological argument for the existence of God. Descartes claims that as the idea of a “supremely perfect being [God], is one which I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number”, the essence of this idea itself is evidence of God, as for something to be perfect it must exist. Of course, this argument is open to many attacks from those such as Aquinas, Kant, Leibniz, Gaunilo and Hume. Furthermore, Descartes undermines himself with his previous meditations, for instance, in Meditation II, he claims we must question “what is reasonable”, as we do not already know. If we cannot appreciate the definition of reasonable, how are we to understand or even fathom what
Based on that supposition, God is not the being than which none greater is possible. If Anselm’s initial definition of God is substituted into the previous inference, it becomes a contradictory statement: the being than which none greater is possible is not the being than which none greater is possible. Therefore Anselm supposition that God exists only in the understanding is false. By proving this to be invalid Anselm has, in effect, proven that God must exist in the understanding and real...