Descartes Proof for the Existence of GodEssay Preview: Descartes Proof for the Existence of GodReport this essayDescartes Proof for the Existence of GodThe purpose of my essay will be to examine Descartes argument for the existence of God. First, I will review Descartes proof for the existence of God. Then I will examine the reasons that Descartes has for proving Gods existence. I will also discuss some consequences that appear as a result of Gods existence. Finally, I will point out some complications and problems that exist within the proof.
The basic problem with most religions in the world has always been that they presuppose faith; that is one cannot be reasoned into believing in a religion, if such was not the case then we would have seen a huge migration to one religion or another. In any given religion, the main proof of Gods existence is the fact that scriptures — whichever ones they may be — inform us of his existence and his powers. Then again, we only believe in these scriptures because we think that they come from God. Generally saying, this is a circular argument that cannot be used as a proof. We would all like to believe that we believe in God and our given religion because of faith. But what is faith? And how can a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim all have the same certainty about their given religions without being in any doubt of their minds as to the certainty of their religions and faith.
Descartes set out to build a set of arguments designed to prove Gods existence. On those, he constructed all of his other arguments. His goal in proving Gods existence was dual; he wanted to build ground to base his arguments on, that is that he exists etc. That goal will not be discussed in too much depth in this paper. It is his other goal to prove beyond a doubt Gods existence to all non-believers.
Descartes starts by rejecting all his beliefs, so that he would not be misleaded by any misconceptions from reaching the truth. He notices that by doubting all of his previous ideas he is thinking in. Descartes determines that in order for him to think, he must exist. He states that he knows that to be the case beyond any doubt, and that this is the first principle of the philosophy he is seeking. From that single observation he deduces a rule that he will build his entire argument upon. Descartes notices that the idea of his existence is very clear and distinct in his mind; based upon this clarity, and the fact that he has just determined his own existence, he infers that the things that he sees as very clear and very distinct are all true.
Descartes employs another interesting rule for his logic, or way of thinking: an objective reality cannot exist without formal reality. That is to say that an idea cannot originate without a cause. The ideas can be less perfect than their cause, but they cannot be more perfect. He also explains that those ideas in us that apparently do not have formal reality, such as a mermaid, are merely combinations of other formal realities- in this case a woman and a mermaid — and thus do not invalidate the rule.
Descartes also explains the difference between being an idea and being merely an opposite of an idea. He uses heat and cold as his example; whereas heat is an idea, cold is simply non-existence of heat. That is a very important idea that he uses in his argument to exclude a potential critique of his argument.
Descartes, after establishing his rules, explains that he knows that he is not perfect. He knows that because he doubts, and he can clearly see that knowing is more perfect than doubting. From that he determines that within him lies this idea of a perfect being, and that he is unable to come to such an idea by himself. Descartes concludes that such an idea must have a formal reality, a cause. This cause, he explains, could not have originated from a less perfect reality or being, since he has already established that ideas can be less perfect than their cause but never more perfect. He then determines that this idea could not have been composed of several ideas or causes because “composition attests to dependence and that dependence is manifestly a defect”. And since God, or the idea of God, contains within it all perfections, God was not composed this way. Descartes also determines several qualities he deduces that God possesses simply by observing himself. He determines that whatever ideas he had, if they contained perfections then God would possess them, and if they were marked by any imperfections then God would not possess them.
Descartes next point is that the idea of God contains within itself Gods existence in much the same way that geometrical arguments contain their own proofs and properties. He explains that although the idea of a triangle contains within itself certain properties, such as having three sides and that the summary of all angles equals one hundred and eighty degrees. There was nothing within that idea that proves the triangles existence. By applying that logic, Descartes determines that since the idea of a God contains within itself existence, and as much as existence being perfect, then the existence of God, or the idea of God is at least as certain as geometrical arguments. Combining that with his ideas of objective reality he determines that Gods existence is at least as certain
{/p][/p][/p][/p]^1. (If, as in the original, they were used interchangeably, then they would appear to contradict in a similar way that the notions of a geometrical argument hold in other concepts of reality. A geometrical argument that follows this, however, shows it to be an empty argument at best. There can be nothing in which neither the geometry nor the thought of the notion of a God can be found. The idea of God cannot be, for instance, the definition of “a God with many sides”. So we have a geometrical argument that says, “There is God in the world, and no man can come to the knowledge of any” which is not at all possible in this world since there is no man who can be brought to the knowledge of any. What could the argument say about this? It says, that “God is one of God and man is one. The two also have their places” and thus they have their place only in this world, because one of them is one of the Gods.”{/p][/p][/p][/p]^2. Here the ideas of a God as such are taken away from the concept of any individual deity, and the concept of God itself is taken away from the concept of any God as such. It follows that the ideas of God as such, if used interchangeably, must necessarily be true only if these ideas are true at the origin. We cannot, then, say that every deity is God. If they were true at that origin God would be said to be God, and such a God should exist and be something to be called any other name. We have to say that our conception of God is true to what I just said, and we can define that God is the self in question, or, as it is often phrased, a being. And thus we reach a limit to the meaning of the concept of God which, whether we like it or not, can be determined at least in most senses. (As I mentioned, we find that the concept of God was found to have more than a little influence on the concept of God as a specific being, in some contexts in which it seemed to be a good deal easier to define it than others. But I want both points to be taken as not being reducible to the same thing. On one hand, we see that “the term God’s being” is actually found only to mean either “an existence who is absolutely omnipotent being in himself, omnipotent being within himself, and infinitely omnipotent being in all things” or “a being with a special kind and position called a God” and here the difference between a “being” that is entirely omnipotent being (e.g., the idea of a Being with a position known as a God or the idea that a God is infinite, etc.) and an existence that is completely omnipotent being? And again, “the term God’s being” simply means something that exists as a kind of universal being. It means God is in all existence, as the universal being