Descartes' Trademark Argument for God's Existence
The trademark argument (also known as the causal argument) tries to
prove Gods existence through the fact that we have an idea of him.
This argument rests on Descartes' definition of cause and effect,
which he considers a priori.
This idea, that God is an infinite being, he reasons is innate left on
our brain as his stamp or trademark much like a potter leaves on his
pots. "God, at my creation, implanted this idea in me, that it might
serve, as it were, for the mark of the workman impressed on his work"
This idea of infinity must be innate because a finite thing like a
human cannot come up with the idea of something infinite 'just as
stone can only be produced by something which contains stone'. If we
have an idea of a perfect being then it must exist. A cause, he argues
also, must have as much reality as its effect. It cannot be less than
the idea of an infinite being because this would be like a baby
fighting a lion and winning.
Mr Right, the perfect man who appears in your dreams then, by this
logic, must exist. So where is he and what is his number? Your idea of
a perfect man is based upon or inspired the qualities or people you
see around you, he does not exist. The idea of God being infinite
however cannot be gained though our senses. There is nothing from
which we can get the idea of infinity thus it must be innate. It is
only logical therefore for God to have left this idea imprinted on our
brain.
2. Explain and illustrate with an example the causal adequacy
principle. What does it have to do with the trademark argument?
Causal Adequacy Principle means that an...
... middle of paper ...
...e in
reality is meant, not existence in the understanding, or in fiction,
etc. Thus despite Descartes' claims to have a clear and distinct idea
of God, in which his essence entails his existence, the ontological
argument can be said to be less than convincing. Descartes' clear and
distinct idea of God is just that: clear and distinct in his
understanding. Although this has been already touched on above, it is
worth repeating: it can be effectively argued that Descartes'
understanding of God does not mean He actually exists. There may not
be any winged horses, but the concept can be grasped, likewise there
may not be a God, but the concept can be grasped. The ontological
argument consistently appears to be defining Him into existence, even
though its supporters, Descartes among them, claim that this is not
the case.
He has no prove of the existence of anyone he thinks and analyze so he exists.
Therefore, (3) the most perfect being exists in reality.... ... middle of paper ... ... Rather than predicate actual existence on God, this logical proposition merely restates the problem. I have argued that existence should not properly be seen as perfection, rather, existence is a prerequisite of any being who is then capable of being either perfect or imperfect.
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
...ceived”. The idea of God not existing is not possible as mountains must have valleys. This conclusion is better explained through his line of argument that “the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence”.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
Rene Descartes’ arguments in “Meditations on First Philosophy” are questionable to exactly how valid and sound they really are. His proof for the existence of God in the fifth meditation is an example of one of his invalid and therefore unsound arguments.
after noting that he could be open to error, now by using it as a
Rene Descartes builds his epistemic views in his meditations. In Meditation 1, he set out to rid himself of the false knowledge which was the foundation for which he built his life. If there was any doubt to these foundational beliefs, he threw the idea out. Descartes broke down his beliefs in Mediation 2 and found that he is a thinking thing and because he thinks, he exists. That is, he knew he is at least a mind. By Meditation 3, Descartes built upon the foundations of the two previous meditations and defined substances. First, there are modes which are the property of objects like green, smoothness, cherry-flavored. Then he said there are finite substances which are things like cups, trees, and bodies. He also recognized that his mind was a finite substance. God, however, is an infinite substances. Then Descartes went on to describe formal and objective reality. Formal reality is the reality an object has. Through this reasoning, modes depend on finite substances and finite substances depend on infinite substances. Objective reality is the reality the idea the object has. Through this reasoning, the idea of modes depends on the idea of finite substances and the idea of finite substances depends on the idea of infinite substances. By following that logic Descartes came to know that ideas about material things could originate from him, but the idea of God, perfect and infinite, could not originate from him because he is imperfect and finite. Additionally, Descartes reasoned that the idea of God (the highest objective reality) could only have come from God therefore God exists. In Meditation 4 Descartes determined that there was no evil demon deceiving him because that being would be imperfect. God, on the other...
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.
Do we need a watchmaker god or the Christian God, and how is it related to living a good life? The subject of god has always fascinated me, and I love to read about what position others place god in their lives. It is also interesting to see how people have different interpretations of who or what god is. I disagree with a lot of what Descartes says, I believe that modern science is very good, but the Christian God needs to be in the first position because science cannot resolve all life’s issues. We need to have a goal and an end, which is eternal happiness with God and assisting others on our way.
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.