Something which is more perfect – in other words, that which contains more reality in itself – cannot be made from that which is less perfect. (Meditation III) How does Descartes use this principle to prove the existence of God? Does his proof work?
In the 3rd mediation of Descartes Mediations and other Metaphysical Writings, Descartes provided us with The Trademark Argument, a both cosmological and ontological argument, in order to attempt to prove the existence of God. The a priori (something that comes before) argument gains its title from the concept that God has left a ‘trademark’ or stamp in our minds to prove his existence. Descartes saw there to be three different types of ideas. The difference in each, being the idea’s source.
…show more content…
Within logic, there must be as much reality in an efficient and total cause, as there is in the effect of that cause. The effect cannot have gained reality from anything other than the cause, and the cause wouldn’t be able to give the effect of that reality without having reality itself. Following on from this then, obviously something cannot come from nothing and something that is more perfect, or contains more reality in itself, cannot come from something less perfect. Descartes used the example of a stone. It is impossible for a stone that did not exist beforehand to come to existence, without being made from something that has ‘formally’ or ‘eminently’ the reality the stone produces. The same can be applied to heat, which cannot come from something that isn’t already hot.
Descartes continues by observing that, if I was to have a thought or idea that I know for sure contains a larger, greater reality than any reality I have inside myself, there is no way I can be the cause of it. Therefore there must be a greater cause, the greater cause being God. Descartes argued that God could never be a fictious idea as he is a ‘necessity’ and the idea is ‘clear and distinct’ God can also not be an adventitious idea, since no one has witnessed or experienced God. God is outside of human understanding and human senses and is known to be immaterial.
Descartes claimed that the more perfect something is, the more real it is. He analyses this theory of
Descartes argues that some ideas are more real than others. These ideas are those that represent substances and contain more objective reality. These ideas are first modes or accidents, finite substance, and infinite substance. Descartes
Descartes is considering that all of his experiences could be false and that everything is just the invention of a powerful being. This resulted in this argument:
I have an idea of a perfect being; it must contain in reality all the
From Descartes point of view, he thinks that it makes sense to talk of degrees of reality to qualify the above assumptions, and he sometimes equates this with talk of degrees of perfection. Thus, he brings God back into the picture. The ideas, then, could come from only God, or from another being superior to humans but inferior to God. But this, too, is impossible, argues Descartes, as if it were the case that God produces the ideas of bodies in humans, then the very strong inclination we have towards believing that the idea-producing bodies resemble the ideas we have would be false and thus God would be allowing us to be deceived which is not permissible. The same would apply if any other being were producing
Secondly, to come up with the second proof of Gods existence, Descartes thought that the power and action that is needed to preserve something is capable of creating something new. He argued that there must be as much power in the cause just as it is in the effect. According to the philosophical writings of Descartes, upon knowing that he did not have power to preserve his own existence because he was just a thinking thing; Descartes concluded that the power must have come from outside him (Descartes, Cottingham and Murdoch 26) And since he is a thinking thing, he claims that the one who created him must also be a thinking thing, possessing all the ideas and attributes of god. In addition, he observed that his parents could not be responsible for creating and preserving his life. Descartes therefore concludes that the one who created him and gave him ideas of a perfect God must be God, therefore God exists.
The highest degree of reality involves the infinite. The infinite represents substances that are unbounded and possess no conceivable or tangible limits in any of their aspects or qualities. The only example of this for Descartes would be an entity of omnipotence, who would be all knowing, all powerful, and that of which no greater can be conceived, in other words God.
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.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.
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.
In a quote previously shown, Descartes claims that his idea of a perfect being comes from God. Descartes also believes that the idea
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.
The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.
The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the
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
First, ideas originate from causes; the latter must have as much or more formal reality as the objective reality of the idea. Second, Descartes has an idea about God, this idea has infinite objective reality because this idea, no matter what caused it has to have infinite formal reality; “because something can’t come from nothing, or the cause must have as much or more reality than the effect” (Descartes 31). Third, Descartes is finite and does not have infinite formal reality, therefore he cannot cause the idea of God because he, as a cause, would have less formal reality than the objective reality of what he produced, effect, which is the idea of God. Thus, God could have caused the idea of God in him, because only God has as much formal reality as the objective reality of his idea (Descartes 31), therefore, God