Rene Descartes was a French philosopher during the 17th century. Descartes wanted to prove without a doubt that he and everything around him existed and that he was not being deceived by some "evil demon"(des. Med. 3). Descartes believed that proving that there was a good god meant that he could trust his senses and know that he was alive. And not dreaming his whole life away. One argument that Descartes uses to prove the existence of god and that god is good is the Ontological argument. This argument is built off of previous arguments he made but starts off with him having an idea of god. Descartes believed that there are two types of reality formal and objective. The objective reality of an object is the idea of that object or the image …show more content…
If he is unable to prove so then there is a chance that he is being deceived and his whole argument falls apart. In meditation four, Descartes wants us to believe that "fraud and deception always contain imperfections, and, while the ability to deceive may be a sign of cunning and power, the desire to deceive reveals malice or weakness and, therefore, can't be among god's desires." This is a weak argument to being used to prove that god is good. One objection that will certainly be raised is the premise that deception is a flaw. There is a case to be made that people-- and by extension god-- can be deceptive without having any malicious intent. For example, physicians who lie to patients or their families in order to save their life. Some doctors choose to withhold negative information from their patients until they recover especially in trauma cases. They are not doing this because they want to harm their patients, but to protect their patients as they recover. Descartes should be concerned with this argument because if he can not prove that god is not a deceiver then he does not have any proof that what he is experiencing and calling life is not all a dream making meditation two and three almost …show more content…
For the sake of argument, we will assume that Descartes was right about god being real. Having a good sense of humor is a perfection so god must own one. To him, we could be a joke. Human "life goes on and on and on, joke after joke after joke, life after life after life. None of them matter, they are all just jokes." He is watching people living and struggling hoping for some afterlife that does not exist for his amusement. " People go through terrible horrible things and are forced to continue in this world anyway. So murder, beatings, rape, genocide, war, poverty, persecution, cannibalism, mass suicide, child abuse, deformity, addiction, insanity, and being a member of society are all just bits to spice up" the fun for him. Descartes' god would be more than capable to create us for his entertainment. Descartes would say that the idea of god doing anything evil is preposterous. In which case I would argue that god then does not have all of the perfections meaning he is not perfect, and since he is no longer considered perfect, he also does not have the perfection of existence meaning he is not real either. Descartes would also argue that god would never put people in danger for the sake of a game. He would be mistaken. "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job... a perfect and an upright man… Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
The problem of the evil deceiver leads Descartes into determining where God exists, who Descartes believes will discredit the notion of an evil deceiver. Descartes does not only have to prove the existence of God, but must attribute one essential quality to God: omnibenevolence. For God to trump this evil deceiver, God must possess the highest quality of goodness. Thus, the existence of God as an omnibenevolent entity voids the existence of an evil deceiver, for an all-good God would not deceive humans. In turn, by proving the existence of God, Descartes disproves the existence of the evil deceiver and solidifies Descartes understandings of truth. After discussing the necessity of assuring God’s existence, Descartes follows his piece with the actual argument proving the existence of God. Desecrates provides several lines of reasoning for proving God, but one of the most compelling ones revolves around the idea of formal realities versus their existence as ideas and the associated hierarchy of the finite and and the
In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.
My thoughts on God are clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able to use his power and reasoning because he knows God is a guarantor of his ideas and thoughts. As Descartes thinks about his own imperfections, it leads him to think about perfection, and how it has to come from something superior to him.... ...
Throughout the meditations Descartes refers to clear and distinct ideas. Descartes first introduces doubt to the reader by saying that one cannot trust these clear and distinct ideas. “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; as it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those that have deceived us even once.” (Descartes, 60) He introduces doubt through the senses, dreams, and through the possibility of an evil genius at work. For instance he states that “There is no sure sign that I can tell that I am awake. If there are no sure signs that I can tell that I am awake then there is reason to doubt I am awake. Therefore there is reason to doubt I am awake.” (Descartes 60)This is how Descartes shows that we may be dreaming even though during these dreams we can experience authentic truths. He also he goes on to state that, “If there is reason to doubt that I am awake then there is reason to doubt that I am sitting by the fire. So then there is reason to doubt that I am sitting by a fire even though I see and feel a fire.” (Descartes 60)This Descartes believes could be true because there may be an evil genius at work, whose sole purpose is to put his entire effort...
Rene Descartes meditations on the existence of God are very profound, thought-provoking, and engaging. From the meditations focused specifically on the existence of God, Descartes uses the argument that based on his clear and distinct perception that cannot be treated with doubt, God does exist. In the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes proclaims that he is certain he is a thinking thing based on his clear and distinct perception, and he couldn’t be certain unless all clear and distinct perceptions are true. Before diving into the existence of God, Descartes introduces smaller arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Descartes introduces in his argument that there are ideas in which he possess that exists outside of him. Utilizing the objective versus formal reality, Descartes states “If the objective reality of any of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me, either formally or eminently, and hence that I myself cannot be its cause, it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of this idea exists” (29). In other words, the ideas of objective reality that resides in Descartes can potentially only come from a supreme being, which is God; God possess more objective reality than he does formal reality. We as humans, as Descartes states, are finite substance, and God is the only infinite substance. The only way for us as a finite substance to think of an infinite substance is possible if, and only if, there is an infinite substance that grants us the idea of substance in first place. After these smaller arguments, Descartes states that while we can doubt the existence of many things, due to the fact that ...
Descartes explains that, “For in the case of trickery or deception some imperfection is to be found; and although the ability to deceive appears to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness, and so cannot apply to God” (Descartes 43). I agree that if God is a perfect being that truly exists, he would not have any reason to deceive humans, and that humans are imperfect because of our own volitions and poor judgement. However this still does not make clear and distinct perceptions true. Again, even if God is not deceiving us, our minds still can. Additionally, this point only makes sense in Descartes’ definition of God, which, again, is merely an assumption. Descartes gives a sound explanation on why God is not a deceiver, however that does not immediately make it true that everything should not be doubted just because we can perceive it clearly.
Descartes then explains that the idea of God is the idea of a perfect or Supreme Being. A perfect being could have set this idea in our minds. He discovers that a perfect thing exists and that perfect being is defined as God. Descartes says, “All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists.” Descartes also reveals that God is not a deceiver. Descartes knows that a perfect being has no faults. Deception depends on some defect or fault. Therefore, if a perfect being has no faults then that perfect being can not be a deceiver.
He argues that if he does not solve God’s existence, he will not be certain about anything else. Thus, Descartes says that he has an idea of God and, therefore, God exists. However, in order to be certain of His existence, Descartes provides proofs that will illustrate his reasoning. The four proofs include formal reality vs. objective reality, something can’t arise from nothing, Descartes cannot be the cause of himself, and therefore, the bigger cause is God. Now that Descartes knows God is real, he must solve another aspect, which is if God can be a deceiver. Descartes believes “it is clear enough from this that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is manifest by the natural light that all fraud and deception depend on some defect” (89). In other words, God possesses all of the perfections that Descartes cannot have but those perfections that are in his thoughts, concluding that God has no defects whatsoever according to the natural
In his third meditation, Descartes expresses doubts about whether he can be absolutely certain of things that seem “clear and distinct.” He finds it necessary to doubt whether even such obvious propositions as “Three plus two equals five” are true because there might be, he says, a supremely powerful deceiver who is causing him to “be deceived even about matters [such as “Three plus two equals five”] that [seem] most evident.” He goes on to make an argument for the existence of a perfect God, reasoning that if such a God exists, he cannot be a deceiver and will therefore make sure that Descartes is not deceived about things that seem to be true.
In constructing his argument for God's existence, Descartes analyzes several aspects of the nature of human thought. He begins by outlining the various types of thoughts we have, which include ideas, thoughts, volitions and judgments. Ideas, or images of ideas can only exist within the mind and are certain of existence. Volitions, or choices are firmly within the mind and are also certain. Emotions, such as love, fear, hate, all exist in the mind and are certain as well. Judgments involve reference to effects outside the mind and are subject to doubt. Therefore, judgments are not certain and distinct. Descartes believes that images, volitions, and emotions are never false but it is our judg...
Next, in the fourth meditation, which leads into Descartes’ thoughts on himself in God’s view. It is important to compare to the third meditation. A second point of view of not just an idea, but now Descartes himself. He asks why a perfect being such as God does not make a perfect being like Descartes himself. He questions why he is not perfect in that sense. Then he explains, it would take much arrogance to question the motives of God. Not only that, but it just simply cannot be comprehended. He rejects the trial, and simply believes; since he himself is not perfect, the idea as a whole may be. He is just a part of the “big picture.” He then concludes he should only make judgements on what he is certain of.
Descartes argument for his existence came from the doubt he had about everything around him. This doubt was generated by the idea of an evil genius. Descartes invented the evil genius to be an all-powerful and all-deceitful being. By creating the possibility of an evil genius, Descartes found the doubt he needed in order to be able to doubt everything he once believed. The evil genius was able to deceive ...
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 that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.