Descartes Explanation In The Theory Of God's Existence

His argument is based on the assumption that essence and existence cannot be separated. In fact, Descartes argues that God’s essence which is his existence is a proof of his existence. In other words, his existence is a proof of his existence. Which makes the whole argument feels like it is missing something, an intermediate in between or a further explanation of essence and existence. Saying that I exist because I exist does not clarify nor prove existence. It is true that I could not perceive anything except as a being, something that exists. However, this does include the actual essence of what I am perceiving, which goes for all beings including God himself. I might perceive two human beings, but their existence which is clear to my perception,

In other words, while there’s a relationship between a definition of something and its properties, this relationship does not necessarily lead to that thing’s existence. I guess what I am trying to say is, when all religions think about the existence of God, they are purely thinking about the existence that they attributed to God, which is a purely subjective and constructed idea. This makes God’s existence a thought of existence which offers no strict confirmation on its existence. When Descartes says that God exists because his nature includes perfection, infinity, omnipresence, and most importantly existence, it is simply a Descartian thought-of-existence, purely related to Descartes’ idea about God, not a proof of God’s existence. It is not enough, for example, for me to think about or even imagine the existence of aliens’ to say and firmly believe that aliens exists. Thinking about things does not make them exist. Even if I perfectly and distinctly imagine or perceive a perfect and a distinct nature of aliens, the nature of those aliens that I build and believe in is my own personal thought-of-idea of