Once Descartes has "proved" his existence by way of the Cogito argument, and has determined what it is that belongs to his essence of being a thinking thing, he must move to examining questions about the world around him. However, before doing this, he thinks it better to examine the question of the existence of God. If he can prove that he was created by a perfectly benevolent creator, then his innate ideas must carry some semblance of truth, as God is not a deceiver and has placed these ideas in Descartes. Knowledge of God will allow the possibility of achieving understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe.1
Descartes offers two arguments for the existence of God. The first, considered in Meditation Three, is known as the "Trademark Argument." The second, proposed in Meditation Five, is called the "Ontological Argument." This essay will consider the former alone.
The Trademark Argument arises out of the fact claimed by Descartes that there is within each of us an idea of a supreme being, which was placed within us by the thing that created us. The purpose of this idea was to act as the mark of a tradesman placed within us. From examination of this idea, it follows, says Descartes, that God exists. His argument firstly involves the acknowledgement of such an idea within ourselves. This idea of God is one of a being who is "eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and the Creator of all things that exist apart from him." This is the first premise of the argument (of course, this has not yet shown that anything corresponding to the idea exists). Secondly, there is the "Causal Adequacy Principle." This principle implies that any object must have as its cause something that contains at least all the attributes of the object if not more. Descartes offers the example of a stone, saying that it cannot be produced by anything that doesn't contain everything to be found in the stone. Similarly, heat cannot be produced by anything that does not contain the same order of perfection as the heat. The purpose of this premise is to reinforce the axiom that nothing comes from nothing.
Descartes then proceeds to apply the Causal Adequacy Principle to ideas. He claims that, just as the cause of objects must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, the cause of an idea must contain at least as much reality, whether "formally" or "emin...
... middle of paper ...
...l between the two; the meditator in Descartes case does not rely on a series of causes as he is not yet sure that the world exists. Secondly, when inquiring about his causal origins, the emphasis is most certainly on finding the source of the idea of the perfect being that Descartes has within himself, rather than any other causal explanation for his existence.
Despite this, the fact that the second version relies on the premises and presupposed conclusions of the first version means that it retains the same weaknesses of the first version. Descartes argument for the existence of God from an innate idea in each of us is simply not convincing. In my opinion, trying to prove the existence of God is contrary to the doctrine of faith that is inherent in being a Christian. As a Christian himself, it puzzles me that Descartes chose this route to proceed with his meditations, and even returned to the subject with the Ontological Argument later in his discussions.
Notes:
1) An immediate objection may be that Descartes has set himself a trap of circularity - if he can know nothing without prior knowledge of the existence of God, how can he form premises for proving that God exists?
...es me, “God should have endowed me with this idea, so that it would be like the mark of the craftsman impressed upon his work” (Descartes 34, 51). Descartes says “the whole force of the argument rest on the fact that I recognize that it would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist.” (Descartes 35, 52) My nature and my existence themselves prove the existence of God, therefore, Descartes says “the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.” (Descartes 34, 51)
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.
My thoughts on God are clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able to use his power and reasoning because he knows God is a guarantor of his ideas and thoughts. As Descartes thinks about his own imperfections, it leads him to think about perfection, and how it has to come from something superior to him.... ...
Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...
In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes narrates the search for certainty in order to recreate all knowledge. He begins with “radical doubt.” He asks a simple question “Is there any one thing of which we can be absolutely certain?” that provides the main question of his analysis. Proceeding forward, he states that the ground of his foundation is the self – evident knowledge of the “thinking thing,” which he himself is.
Ideas, innovations, and inventions are all created from brilliant minds. Than how did these ideas come to be? Descartes believes that God is the cause of new innovations adding, therefore God instilled in us the idea of his existence. Explaining, in order for us to draw an idea from a presumption or thought, than an object must have been derived not by us but rather God. An example of his presumption of the existence of God would be the fact that if one cannot imagine a bookshelf without books. Whether one exists or not, it is true than that they cannot be separated from each other. Descartes follows by stating that “he cannot conceive God without existence, existence is inseparable from him.”
Descartes goes on to prove the existence of God in two different ways. His arguments rely on that fact that we have a clear and distinct idea of God. The first way is the cosmological proof where the idea that something cannot come from nothing because something has to exist in order to create something else. As a finite being, it would be impossible for us to come up with an idea for something or someone
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
“Cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.” A mathematician, scientific thinker, and metaphysician Rene Descartes used this term in his “Meditation on First Philosophy.” This term has become famous especially in western philosophy. However, this term was not Descartes only legacy. His legacies include the development of the Cartesian coordinates, philosophical books, and theories. Even though the distinction between mind and body can be traced to the Greeks, Descartes account of the mind and body relationship has been considered the first and the most influential. Descartes was born in 1596 in France, from 1628 to 1649 Descartes remained in Holland, during this time he composed multiple works that set the scene for all later philosophical study of mind and body. (René Descartes and the legacy of mind/body dualism) “Meditation on First Philosophy,” is one of Descartes famous treatises. First published in the 17th century, it consists of six meditations. In the first meditation Descartes eliminates all belief in things that are not certain, basically he removes everything from the table. Then one by one he examines each belief and determines whether any of these beliefs can be known for sure. Meditations three and five focus on the existence of God. This ontological argument is both fascinating and poorly understood in the philosophical community. Descartes tries to prove God’s existence by using simple but influential foundations. (Nolan). Descartes innate ideas proof and ontological proof of the existence of God is going to be assessed through the summarization of meditation thee and meditation five, while his work is also going to be compared to Anselm’s ontological argument on the existence of God.
One of Rene Descartes’ major culminations in Meditations on First Philosophy is “I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes:17). This statement can be explicated by examining Descartes’ Cartesian method of doubt and his subsequent discovery of basic truths. Even though I do believe that Descartes concludes with a statement that is accurate: cogito ergo sum, there are areas of his proof that are susceptible to defamation. These objections discover serious error with Descartes’ method used in determining the aforementioned conclusion.
He states, "From the fact that I cannot think of God not existing, it follows that existence cannot be separated from God and thus that he actually exists." (298) The existence of God is something that cannot be separated, just as we cannot separate the idea of an ocean without sand. Descartes explains that man is a finite being. The mind grasps ideas mainly through its perception of such objects. Descartes expounds that he is a thinking thing. He goes on to say that sensations and mental images exist in him as aspects of his thinking. He says that he knows definitively that he exists because he sees clearly and distinctly the composite parts that make up his entire self; therefore, anybody who says that he does not exist is making a false statement because he, as a thinking being, is able to clearly and distinctly grasp his being and thus it is true that he exists.
Descartes thinks that we have a very clear and distinct idea of God. He thinks God must exist and Descartes himself must exist. It is a very different way of thinking shown from the six meditations. Descartes uses ideas, experiments, and “proofs” to try and prove God’s existence.
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.
Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it. To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a...