The existence of God is a much debated philosophical argument that has mystified philosophers since the age of the ‘Enlightenment.’ Many of the different arguments put forth and analysed though, have not adequately proven God’s existence. Although in order to move forward, failed arguments must be studied to ensure that mistakes are not repeated. One such argument is the Ontological Argument.
This argument was first recorded by St. Anslem (1033-1109). Descartes adapts this argument in the fifth meditation in ‘Meditations on First Philosophy.’ He first establishes that whenever he thinks about a triangle, there are certain properties that must be present in order for the form to be a triangle. Further “even if perhaps no such figure exists, or has ever existed, anywhere outside my thought” (Cottingham, 1996), recognised properties, such as “its three angles equal two right angles”, (Cottingham, 1996) remain.
He applied this reasoning to the existence of God. Descartes thinks of “a supremely perfect being” (Cottingham, 1996) just as he thinks of the triangle. This being is God and has all the properties associated with God that makes him perfect in every way. He concedes that ‘essence’ is separate from ‘existence’, since knowing the properties of something does not mean it exists. Nonetheless, he maintains that God is different and links the existence of God to the number of sides of a triangle. Hence, Descartes reasons if God did not exist, then he would not be as perfect as a God who does, which contradicts the first assumption. Thus, “God exist”. (Cottingham, 1996)
This argument appears justifiable, but the feeling that something went amok lingers. This is the viewpoint of Gaunilo, who was the first to launch his object...
... middle of paper ...
...us, if God existed, then by Descartes reasoning he would be perfect, but if he does not exist, this does not take away from his perfection. (Hospers, 1997)
Thus, based on the objections noted, Ontological Argument appears to be defective.
Works Cited
Cardinal, D. et al. (2010) Philosophy of Religion London: Hodder Murray.
Cottingham, J. (1996) Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy:With Selections from the Objections and Replies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grim, P. (1982) ‘In behalf of ‘in behalf of the fool.’’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 13, Issue 1, No. 0020-704, March 01 1982, p. 34.
Hospers, J. (1997) An Introduction to Philsoophical Analysis. 4th edition. London: Routledge Ltd.
Scruton, R. (1995) A Short History or Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
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.
This step in Descartes method puts him in a supreme position above all error, making him perfect. When speaking of God, he incorporates his fascination with mathematics and compares God with geometry. Descartes writes, “Consequently it is at least certain God, who is a being so perfect, is, or exists, as any demonstration of geometry can possibly be.” (Descartes, 26). Here we see that God is a complex puzzle that needs to be solved. God is compared to geometry and Descartes thinks God is a problem that he is able to figure out, like one studying a math problem. Descartes moves to Holland where he is not able to speak the language, therefore he does not need to be bothered by people and can be alone with his thoughts. Descartes is totally wrong, he removed himself from the community and believes that he is the ultimate authority in all things. We must shine the light of truth on these errors because those lacking in proper formation can be fooled into believing this is truth. Descartes minimizes God to a math problem that needs to be solved, he makes himself the authority of truth and breaks with any type of community that could provide
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
Descartes, R., & Cottingham, J. (1986). Meditation on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Descartes’ first premise of the existence of God is “ I have an idea of God” which first means that he has an idea of an infinite perfect being. With this he realizes that the idea of God must have more objective reality than formal reality. As he thinks that God is infinite, than he knows he is finite, and through this he realizes that the idea of God being this way could not of been provoked through his mind but through God himself. And as concluded in Meditation II, Descartes now knows he exists through
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, Rene. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. 4th ed. N.p.: Hackett, 1998. Print.
One of Rene Descartes’ major culminations in Meditations on First Philosophy is “I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (Descartes:17). This statement can be explicated by examining Descartes’ Cartesian method of doubt and his subsequent discovery of basic truths. Even though I do believe that Descartes concludes with a statement that is accurate: cogito ergo sum, there are areas of his proof that are susceptible to defamation. These objections discover serious error with Descartes’ method used in determining the aforementioned conclusion.
Firstly, Descartes talks about “proofs” of the existence of God, explained in his third and fifth meditation. Meaning, his proofs are shown by experiment to prove that God exists. He reinterprets Archimedes ' saying, “required only one fixed and immovable point to move the whole earth from its place, I can hope for great things if I can even find one small thing that is certain and unshakeable (Descartes 159).” That he could shift the entire earth
Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, R. & Donald A. C. (1993). Discourse On Method; And, Meditations On First Philosophy / René Descartes; Translated By Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by John Cottingham. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1996.
Descartes affirms that he is certain that he is a thinking thing. His reasoning, however, seems to be a circular argument. Descartes knows he is a thinking thing because “in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm” (Descartes, 24). He concludes, “everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (Descartes, 24). Descartes could only know that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true if he can be certain he is a thinking thing. Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ...
Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it. To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a...
[1] Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. 1641 [Translated by John Veitch (1901)] Meditation 6, http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/9.htm