Descartes Argument For The Existence Of God

Skepticism is a problem because, there is no conclusive way to prove that anything other than the contents of my own mind exist. The problem of skepticism is troubling for empiricist because they think that all knowledge comes from sensory experience about the world (our knowledge of the world comes from experience). Considering that skepticism provides reasons to doubt the accuracy of our sensory makes it impossible to argue against it because we can't use knowledge from sensory experience as we get that knowledge from the world.
Even though I'm a true skeptic in many areas in my life, I personally believe that skepticism about 'the world' is not practical and thus, we should not preoccupy our minds with it. Whether the external world is real or not, we still have to function in it to the best of our abilities, so why worry about something we have no control over it.

2. How does Descartes argue for the distinction between the mind and the body? What is the mind according to Descartes? What is dualism and how does it differ from materialism about the mind? What do you think about mind-body dualism—that is, do you find it attractive as a view of the mental, or are you unsympathetic?

During

the second mediation Descartes believes that there is a possibility he is being deceived by an evil demon about reality. This is when he realizes that he is a thinking thing if he is in fact, being deceived. This leads to "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am"). Descartes could not doubt the existence of his mind (which was a thinking thing) but could doubt the existence of his body as the evil demon was deceiving him about the external world; he came to the conclusion that the body and the mind must be different things.
Dualism differs from materialism in that they believed the mind and the body are distinct and that the mind is not reducible to the physical. On the other hand, materialism states that the mind and body are made of the same thing and the mind is reducible to the physical. I am unsympathetic to this believe of dualism. I lean more towards materialism because I believe mind and body are made of the same thing both being extremely complex.

3. What is Descartes’ argument for the existence of God? Explain it in full. How does he run into problems with his proof of the existence of God with respect to his use of clear and distinct ideas? Do you find the argument that he presents for God convincing? Why or why not?

Descartes' argument for the existence of God in the third meditation focuses on the idea of perfection as proof of God's existence.

In the argument, he states that in his mind he has the idea of perfection and every idea has a cause. Thus, "the idea of perfection must have a cause". Therefore, the only thing that could be responsible for this idea of perfection must be just as perfect as the idea of perfection; because "ideas and their causes have common properties". This means that a perfect thing caused the idea of perfection and the only perfect thing is God. As a result of all the above mention reasons, God must exist. Moreover, considering that God is perfect, he would not be capable of deceiving him; so the way he perceived the world must be how the world truly

is.
The problem with Descartes Proof of God's existence is the 'Cartesian circle' meaning he uses circular reasoning. Specifically, he rationalizes his believe of God on his "clear and distinct ideas". Yet, he also justifies "believing his clear and distance ideas" by virtue of God. Thus, this argument has no validity as he uses fallacious reasoning.
I do not find this God argument convincing because it comes with no clear proof of logic. The argument is irrational.

4. Explain Locke’s theory of personal identity in terms of memories. What is the main problem that Locke encounters with his theory related to moral responsibility? Do you find Locke’s account of personal identity convincing? Why or why not?

According to Locke's theory of personal identity, a person continues to be the same person only if such person has recollections of past experiences. In other words, person 'A' continues to be the same individual (person 'B') only if person 'A' can remember person "B's life experiences. The person can recollect in smaller segments in order to have psychological continuity (e.g. I remember back when I was 15 years old even though I don't remember when I was 5 years old - however, when I was 15 yrs old I had memories of when I was 5 yrs old -- there is psychological continuity across time in smaller segments).
The problem with this theory related to moral responsibility is that if a person commits a crime and then later has amnesia, forgetting the time of when the crime was done; then such person would not be responsible for such crime because they would have no memory of it. In other words, such person is not responsible because his/her psychological continuity was interrupted.