Descartes Proof Of God

The Proofs of God Descartes thinks that we have a very clear and distinct idea of God. He thinks God must exist and Descartes himself must exist. It is a very different way of thinking shown from the six meditations. Descartes uses ideas, experiments, and “proofs” to try and prove God’s existence. 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

He has new ideas of God. 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 it cannot be a deceiver. For instance, deception only relies on imperfection, while that is not God, which makes God a non deceiver. The idea of God is something that would not just come natural. It is not living ordinarily and just thinking of God. The idea of God as a whole must be created by God. If humans are finite, and God is infinite, how could one possible have the thought of such an infinite being. 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.

Both try to prove the existence but have similar, but different ways to do it. Aquinas was basically a cause and effect argument, while Descartes was based on knowledge and experience, and rejection of older views. Descartes does have a causality proof, but it is different from Aquinas. Aquinas explains a cause of mankind, where Descarte is directed toward his idea of “the idea.” I personally believe neither are wrong and neither are right. It would be a great argument if they somehow put the arguments together. Such as Descartes using the proof of “change or motion,” and proof of “efficient cause.” That would eliminate some uncertainty of Descartes. Of course he does talk about causal proof in the third meditation. Also he does say he is certain only of his uncertainty, but he could claim some reason how he exists, as well as God. Descartes believes only what’s in the mind 's eye and how he experience things in the world. While I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become. It could be the efficient cause, causing the world to start. Although still having the question what made such a cause to effect everything in the