Descartes Cosmological And Ontological Arguments Are Well

Descartes continues in the fifth meditation, Descartes argues that geometric shapes like triangles exist as an idea in his mind and he can clearly perceive it. Descartes believed these geometric truths to be more evident than the existence of things that can be understood through the senses. Descartes then argues that since a triangle which does not exist in the material world can be distinctly perceived to exist, God too must also exist because God exists as a clear and perceivable idea. From the idea of God Descartes can perceive God’s attributes and one of these attributes is that God exists. Therefore, Descartes

In Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes is seeking to find a system of stable, lasting and certain knowledge, which he can ultimately regard as the Truth. In his methodical quest to carry out his task, Descartes eventually arrives at the proverbial fork in the road: how to bridge the knowledge of self with that of the rest of the world. Descartes’ answer to this is to prove the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to state and explain Descartes' Third Meditation: Proof of God's Existence by identifying relevant concepts and terminology and their relationship to each other and examining each premise as well as the conclusion of the proof and finally

By the first premise Descartes refers to an activity that the body does not participate in. For instance, perception and walking are two activities which either directly requires the body (walking) or relies upon the body (perception). The activity of thinking can be done without a body. You can clearly and distinctly imagine yourself without a body, but you cannot imagine not thinking. Premise 2 indicates this distinction even more. Since the activity of thinking is separate from the body then this activity does not fall into doubt. Anything the body senses or is part of the body can be doubted because the mind’s eye would only perceive the image the body creates which has previously be shown to be dubious. A possible objection is that Descartes is pointing to another representation which the body has created. For instance, the body has created the image of thinking which the mind’s eye views. In addition, could we not be dreaming and thus deceived that we are thinking or could there be a demon deceiving

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes takes the reader through a methodological exercise in philosophical enquiry. After stripping the intellect of all doubtful and false beliefs, he re-examines the nature and structure of being in an attempt to secure a universally valid epistemology free from skepticism. Hoping for the successful reconciliation of science and theology, Descartes works to reconstruct a new foundation of absolute and certain truth to act as a catalyst for future scientific research by “showing that a mathematical [rational-objective] physics of the world is attainable by creatures with our intellectual capacities and faculties” (Shand 1994, p.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The cosmological argument seeks to prove the existence of God by looking at the universe. It is an A posteriori proof based on experience and the observation of the world not logic so the outcome is probable or possible not definite. The argument is in three forms; motion, causation and being. These are also the first three ways in the five ways presented by Aquinas through which he believed the existence of God could be shown.

After giving his first proof for the existence of God Descartes concludes by mentioning that this proof is not always self-evident. When he is absorbed in the world of sensory illusions it is not quite obvious to him that God’s existence can be derived from the idea of God. So to further cement God’s existence Descartes begins his second proof by posing the question of whether he could exist (a thinking thing that possesses the idea of an infinite and perfect god) if God itself did not exist.

Descartes’s attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the argument that he has the clear and distinct idea of God as the “most perfect being and that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Therefore, this idea of God can’t be from himself, but its cause must be God. So God exists. In what follows I’ll explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.

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.

My initial approach to René Descartes, in Meditations on First Philosophy, views the third meditation’s attempts to prove the existence of God as a way of establishing a foundation for the existence of truth, falsity, corporeal things and eventually the establishment of the sciences. When viewed in this light, Descartes is accused of drawing himself into a ‘Cartesian circle,’ ultimately forcing this cosmological proof of God to defy Cartesian method, thus precipitating the failure of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth meditations. This approach to the meditations, in the order with which they are presented, allows me to state that a proof of the existence of God cannot hold

The cosmological argument takes the suggestion that the beginning of the universe was uncaused to be impossible. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe was therefore caused by something outside it, God. Without God there would be one entity, the existence of which we could not explain, namely the universe; with God there would be one entity the existence of which we could not explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, would raise as many problems as it solved, and so the cosmological argument would leave us in no better position than it found us.

Descartes’ method offers definitive conclusions on certain topics, (his existence, the existence of God)but his reasoning is not without error. He uses three arguments to prove existence (His and God’s) that attempt to solidify his conclusions. For his method to function seamlessly, Descartes needs to be consistent in his use of the method, that is, he must continue to doubt and challenge thoughts that originate in his own mind. He is unable to achieve this ideal state of mind, however, and his proofs are shown to be faulty.

Descartes utilizes another rule in his thought process which states that objective reality cannot exist without formal reality. By this he means that we cannot form an idea without a cause. Assuming that God does exist would be an example of a Formal reality. Whereas the idea of God, is considered objective reality because it represents an infinite substance. Ideas themselves automatically have objective reality because the idea itself represents some reality. Also, the more perfect ideas cannot come from the less perfect; this is called The Causal

In the meditations, Descartes evaluates whether or not everything we know is a reality or a dream. Descartes claims that we can only be sure that our beliefs are true when we clearly and distinctively perceive them to be true. As the reader analyzes the third meditation, Descartes has confirmed that some of his beliefs are in fact true. The first is that Descartes himself exists. This is expressed in what has now become a popular quote known as the “Cogito” which says, “I think therefore I am. His second conclusion is that God exist and that he is not a deceiver. Descartes then presents his arguments to prove the existence of God. He argues that by nature humans are imperfect beings. Furthermore, humankind could not possibly be able to comprehend perfection or infinite things on their own. He writes, “By the name of God I understand a substance that is infinite, independent, all-knowing, all powerful, and which myself and everything else…have been created.”(16) Descartes uses this description of God to display the distinction between God and man.

In the fourth premise Descartes states that indeed, the cause of this idea must contain at least as much formal reality as the idea contains objective reality. Formal and objective are used in a different context than what we are used to. “The formal properties of an idea are the properties it has as a mode of consciousness” (Thompson, 31) Formal reality is properties or modes that ideas have. In contrast, objective reality focuses on what an idea represents or the content of the ideas. “Descartes uses the phrase objective properties of an idea to stand for the content of the idea or what the idea is of” (Thompson, 31). There are also varying degrees of formal and objective reality. Modes, finite substances and infinite substances all have varying degrees formal and objective reality. Similarly, modes are considered to be the lowest type of both objective and formal reality, followed by finite and then by infinite substances. To put forth an example, a dragon has the objective reality of an idea of a substance. This is so even though we know that dragons do not exist. However, if hypothetically they