Examples Of Descartes Argument For The Proof Of God's Existence

Descartes’s mission in the meditations was to doubt everything and that what remained from his doubting could be considered the truth. This lead Descartes to argue for the existence of God. For the purpose of this paper, I will first discuss Descartes’s argument for the existence of God. I will then take issue with Descartes’s argument first with his view on formal reality and varying levels of reality, then with his argument that only God can cause the idea of God. I will then conclude with

I have an idea of a perfect being; it must contain in reality all the

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.

Descartes’ attempts to prove the existence of God are arguably very flawed and they are more so in a modern, post-Darwin era where the watchmaker analogy has generally been reversed in its use. What is interesting though is Descartes’ position on God in Part V of Discours sur la méthode. He suggests that in another, imaginary world, God would not need to exist and this imaginary world could be exactly the same as ours with its creation and continuation being dictated by laws of nature born of chaos rather than the influence of a Supreme Being. It would appear then as though Descartes’ view on God is that he is not necessary but he is certain, based on his adherence to the Bible, Genesis in particular, and his own reasoning.

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 existence of God has always been an arguable topic. Descartes’ however, believed that he had proof of God’s existence through an intense analysis of the mind. Throughout this paper I will discuss what he has provided as proof and some of the complications that arise throughout his argument.

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.

Descartes makes an attempt to prove God’s existence throughout his third meditation. In his first premise he states that he has an idea of an infinitely perfect being. He uses the Principle of Sufficient reason to advance his argument; it states that everything must have a reason or cause. This put forth his second premise; that the idea of god must have a

A standout amongst the most questionable, disputable topics has been the presence of god. There are various regular arguments for the presence of God. Descartes is one of many, he trusted in himself that he had affirmation of God's quality through an extraordinary examination of the mind. Descartes has more than one of many thoughts. To start Descartes ask "how would I know that I exist? As covered in my presentation Descartes wants to demonstrate that there is no evil spirit that is always deceiving him. Remembering the true objective to do this; he leaves to show that he has the unmistakable and a particular thought that God is incredible and can't along these lines mislead him. This is done by recommending the considerations can have more prominent reality. For Descartes Existence is conventional and those things that exist are more flawless or all the more awesome then those things that don't. Descartes suggests that there are three sorts of thoughts: Innate, Invented, and Adventitious. Innate thoughts are and have reliably been inside us, Fictitious or imagined contemplations begin from our imaginative energy , and Adventitious considerations start from experiences of the world. He contends that the possibility of God is Innate and set in us by God and he dismissed the likelihood that the possibility of God is Invented or Adventitious.

I will argue that Descartes’ principle of perfection which he uses to prove the existence of God is unsound. I will do this by first examining what is meant by the term ‘more reality’. After this, I will discuss the ideas surrounding ‘perfection’ and how Descartes derives a perfect God from a malevolent deceiver. I will conclude that Descartes’ use of perfection to aid God’s existence is implausible.

In A Discourse on the Method, Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God in a priori manner. He did not trust his own senses when trying to prove the existence of God and therefore he relied on the ontological argument. By making the same assumption made by Anselm, which was that an ontological argument assumes that existence is a predicate of God, Descartes is able to conclude that ‘God exists’ is true by definition because the subject ‘God’, who already contains all perfections, already contains the predicate – exists, which is a perfection. Although this may be perceived as a strong claim to believers, many such as Gaunilo would have disagreed. Descartes postulates his argument in the fourth part of his Discourse in order to try and prove the existence of God. One must discuss why one feels Descartes attempted to do so and exactly how convincing his claim is. However, before one can understand his claim, it is important to grasp an idea of the background that Descartes was writing from when he wrote the Discourse and the meaning of proof.

To further validate his proof, he attempts to show God’s existence as an a posteriori claim. Descartes states that as humans we have the idea of God in our minds. We conceive God as a perfect being, that of perfect existence. As shown in the quote from page 37, this idea of God is beyond our reasoning to create, and must have come from God itself. Our idea of God certifies his existence. Descartes deviates from the method again, and his reasoning fails to provide an absolute proof.

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

First: Analyze and evaluate the two proofs of God's existence. How are they different? Is one more convincing than the other? Why did Descartes think he needed two proofs? Do they do different work for him? And secondly: Does Descartes give a satisfactory account of human error, given a perfect and divine creator? Are Descartes' arguments convincing, or does it still seem unnecessary and less than perfect that God created us with flaws?