Descartes Cosmological Argument Essay

René Descartes was born on 31 March 1596 in La Haye, France; a city which was later renamed as “Descartes” in his honor. his early life was not well documented until 1960, but it is known that he was familiar with mathematics and philosophy (Hatfield). Sometimes described as “The Father of Modern Philosophy”, not only considered a great philosopher, but also a great mathematician, contributed greatly for both areas – Cartesian geometry, for instance, was named in his honor (Norman 19). In his Meditations, Descartes uses a causal argumentation to prove the existence of a perfect being, who he considers to be God; these conclusions are controversial, since problems can be found in the arguments used (Hartfield). Based on the arguments used to draw his conclusions, this essay is going to discuss some apparent flaws in Descartes’s causal

In Meditations II Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy changed the landscape of Western Philosophy by stating: ‘cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am’. Now referred to as Descartes’ Cogito argument. The introduction of the cogito would go on to not only immortalize Descartes but also solidify his status as a pioneer of human thought. However, over time many modern day philosophers have begun to question the merit of Descartes’ Cogito argument. Much of the argument’s criticism draws from its uncanny similarities to Avicenna’s Floating Man thought experiment, which had been presented 600 years prior. Despite the apparent similarities between these arguments, a thorough analysis of each account will reveal unexpected distinctions.

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

Thomas Aquinas was a theologian and philosopher who wrote Summa Theologica, which contains “The Five Ways”. In his second of the five ways, Aquinas uses two terms that the average individual may not be familiar with. The first term is efficient cause, which is the thing whose activity brings an object into being, or produces the event in question. The second term is first cause, which refers to something that causes other things to exist but was not caused to exist itself (an uncaused cause). In this paper, I will argue that Aquinas’ “second way” is an unsound argument for the existence of God.

In philosophy of religion, one of Descartes’s most famous arguments is his Ontological proof for the existence of God. It is a proof that one can know God a priori, with no experience whatsoever. Countering Descartes, a philosopher named Caterus raised key objections to his proof, which Descartes later responded to in an intriguing way. Descartes’s reply to Caterus’s critique of the Ontological argument does not properly refute the objections made.

Descartes’ First Proof of the Existence of God tend to be variety of cosmological argument made in meditation 3, where he is saying that if God did not exist than where did the idea of God come from in our minds(Descartes, p.78).This idea of God has a greater type of reality than those of other idea. This is kind of complex argument .For better understanding of this argument, he classified reality into two classes. The “formal reality” which is the degree of reality that something has and the “objective reality” that applies to ideas (Descartes, p.73&74). The ideas have lowest degree of formal reality because ideas rely upon a thinker for existence, so that should thinker not exist the idea would not have either. God, consider by Descartes

Many philosophers and theologians have provided varying arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are either a priori, understood independent of worldly experience and observation (Ontological Argument), or a posteriori, dependent on experience and based on observations of how the world is (Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). This paper will focus on the Cosmological Argument, and show that its underlying principle, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, fails to establish it as a sound argument for the existence of God. To accomplish this, I will, first, define the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason; then explain the argument, and how it is based on

    In his Meditations, Rene Descartes attempts to uncover certain truths about existence.  In his Third Meditation, he establishes his "special causal principle" (SCP).  Descartes uses this principle to explore the origin of ideas, and to prove the existence of God.  I agree that there is much logic to be found in the SCP, but I disagree with Descartes method of proving God's existence, and in this essay I will explain why.  I will begin by explaining the SCP, and will then demonstrate how Descartes applies this principle to prove that God exists.  I will then present my critique of the SCP, and expose the flaws in both of Descartes proofs with regards to the principle.  A conclusion will then

The only reason why the Descartes believes that an infinite being must exist is because he is able to find faults about himself. This helps to strengthen Descartes’ argument in favor of the existence of God because if a more perfect being did not exist one would not be able to find imperfections within themselves since they would have no standard to base their imperfections on. However, one may argue that due to the existence of a perfect being, we find our imperfections by comparing ourselves to other imperfect beings. Therefore, the definition of God as perfect and infinite would not necessarily be

Descartes’ attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the Trademark argument. He reasons that by having an idea of an infinite being with a certain degree of “objective reality”, “there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Descartes’ idea of God has more objective reality of any of his ideas. Therefore, God must be the cause of his idea as a result of his existence. In what follows I will explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.

In René Descartes’s Discourse on Method, “seeking the true method for arriving at knowledge” (p. 10) is the goal in which he states in the beginning of discourse. With that end in mind, by analyzing proofs that Descartes finds it can be seen if this was achieved. The proof that God exist is a defining moment in the discourse since God is continually referenced for origin of true knowledge. The reference to God does not only set the stage for further proofs on knowledge, but as the original truth, all of what Descartes finds real can be related back to God. This idea will be key in order to keep the excising of the method going when Descartes falls stagnant when relating to the external world (p. 19). Nevertheless, his two proofs of the existence of God affect the entire discourse either logical or structurally. His reasoning for the both proofs is in someway exposed to either an assumption or a logical mistake. While the need for two proofs reflects negatively on the way the theme is structured through out the entire discourse. Inherently, the way these issue are dealt with will show the proficiency of Descartes ‘s method. God’s existence is a fundamental idea in the Discourse on Method, since Descartes’s method is unsuccessful to prove this idea with out any error; the entire message of the discourse suffers.

In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, René Descartes sets out to establish a set of indubitable truths for the sciences. He begins by discarding all of his beliefs, then works to rebuild his beliefs based on careful thought. Descartes clearly states this goal, saying in the First Meditation, “I will work my way up… I will accomplish this by putting aside everything that admits of the least doubt” (I, 17). He is able to establish his own existence, but struggles to move beyond his internal thoughts to discuss external objects. Descartes decides that the Christian God is the bridge he needs to escape the confines of his own mind, and argues for the existence of God in the Third Meditation in order to move on to discussing the physical world. In this paper I will argue that Descartes’ rationalistic project would have been improved without an appeal to the Christian God, although I will also argue that Descartes thinks this appeal is necessary.

In meditation III, Descartes explores the idea that if something which is more perfect- in other words, that which contains more reality in itself- cannot be made from that which is less perfect. Descartes uses this principle in an attempt to prove the existence of God. In this essay I aim to explore the validity of the principle as justification for Gods existence by discussing Descartes take on the hierarchy of ideas

Descartes’ claim of “I think, therefore I am”, is an attempt to establish a firm foundation for the understanding of the universe and explores the ideas of the self and what we can know to be real. However, there is one major flaw in this approach. That flaw is how we are to create this foundation when before it we had nothing and the paradoxes in the creating definitions of words.

For generations in time, the approximative belief of God in conceptual value has been imbued in the heart of the human race as a core valve in man’s history. From antiquity to contemporary modernism, there has always been a diversified integration composed of believers and non-believers of God. The assemblage of those who have “pledged their allegiance” to God foster a like-minded relation to one religious group or another. On the other hand, “rationalist - freethinkers” as I would like to call them, postulate the perception of God to be inexplicable and therefore attempt to pursue the answers by means of scientific methods. In proportional relation to our modern day life with the development of technology and advancement of sciences, we still have not found the correlative response to the question “does God exist?”. Amidst the range of philosophers and scholars who have attempted to answer this question, we shall examine René Descartes’ approach on the concept of God.