The Deceiving Power of God

955 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Six meditations by descartes

In Meditations III, one of the six meditations in his book Meditation, Objections, and Replies, René Descartes acknowledges the existence of God. Descartes says, “Indeed I have no choice but to conclude that the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists.”(28) Descartes believes that he did not come into existence by himself, but some higher being, God, had to be in existence already and had to create Descartes. I agree with Descartes’s reasoning of God’s existence. But then as Descartes continues his ideas into the fourth meditation, he begins to discuss how God is a perfect being. Descartes says, “To begin with, I acknowledge that it is impossible for God ever to deceive me, for trickery or deception are always indicative of some imperfection.”(30) Deception is seen as an imperfection. And since God is a perfect being, deception is not a part of Him. This is where I do not agree with Descartes’ knowledge and reason. I believe that God does have the power of deception and that God uses it. In this paper I will argue that God is not the perfect being that Descartes argues He is since there are instances in which God displays His deceitful tendencies. I will provide two examples of how God is deceptive. Descartes, however has made certain points in his meditation that he feels like strengthens his ideas of God not being a deceiver. Keeping his ideas in mind, I will discuss a possible way in which Descartes would reply to my objection against his ideas.

The first argument I will make concerns the way God has deceived people into doing things He wants them to do. Descartes states “Accord-ingly, deception is incompatible with God....

... middle of paper ...

...However, it is not God’s fault that our perception is deceiving us. He would say that when we see mirages, it is not in fact God that is deceiving us, it is nature itself. If our perception of something is wrong, then it is nature’s fault that we perceive it like that, not God’s.

In conclusion, Descartes’s argument for a non-deceptive God can be valid. But based off my examples, I have shown that there are flaws in Descartes’s ideas. My first example of showing that God deceived Abraham into almost killing his son shows that God can deceive us for his own purposes, whether those purposes are good or not. My second example involving our perception also shows that God can deceive us, whether he is deceiving us intentionally or unintentionally. Overall, Descartes argument is strong, but if he were to provide solid examples for his ideas, then they would be stronger.

Show More
Related

  • Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy

    1961 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rene Descartes’ third meditation from his book Meditations on First Philosophy, examines Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this essay will be to explore Descartes’ reasoning and proofs of God’s existence. In the third meditation, Descartes states two arguments attempting to prove God’s existence, the Trademark argument and the traditional Cosmological argument. Although his arguments are strong and relatively truthful, they do no prove the existence of God.

    Read More

  • Thirteenth Floor Simulations

    1031 Words  | 3 Pages

    This means that if we see something clearly and distinctly we are able to conclude that it is true and cannot be doubted. But on the other hand, what if what I clearly and distinctly perceive is true is actually false because I may be being tricked by an evil genius? According to Descartes, this is not possible because of the existence of God. Descartes says that God would not trick us because he is a perfect being. So, with there being a perfect god, it is impossible for there to be an evil genius tricking us because God would not allow such a thing. This leads us to believe that if Descartes’s argument for the principle of clarity and distinctness is true, then it would not be possible for us to be living in a simulation like The Thirteenth Floor. In spite of this good news, Descartes’s argument is problematic. Descartes attempts to prove the principle of clarity and distinctness by using the existence of God as a bridge. At the same time, Descartes must use this principle to explain the existence of God. Descartes ends up with a circular argument known as the Cartesian circle. This can be problematic because it means that if God does not exist, then it means that it is entirely possible for us to be living in a simulation. Maybe even a simulation within a simulation like the inhabitants of the 1930’s simulation. Not all hope is lost when it comes to our existence. Descartes

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Descartes Evil Deceiver

    1373 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of George Berkeley And Descartes

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He

    Read More

  • Descartes' Proof for the Existence of God

    3413 Words  | 7 Pages

    Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he descends into the pit of skepticism in the first two Meditations, defeats the skeptics by finding the a version of the cogito, his nature, and that of bodies, only to find them selves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation III. In large measure this change of attitude results from a number of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Second is that the complications include the use of scholastic machinery for which the reader is generally quite unprepared -- including such doctrines as a Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the Heirloom theory of causaltiy, and confusi ng terms such as "eminent," "objective" and "formal reality" used in technical ways which require explanation. Third, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. A puzzled student once remaked, "If it were possible to prove that God exists, what would one need faith for?" So, even those inclined to grant the truth of the conclusion of Descartes' proof are often skeptical about the process of reaching it.

    Read More

  • Mediations of First Philosophy by Descartes

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Humes' and Descartes' Position on the Existence of the External World

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Descartes argues that we can know the external world because of God, and God is not a deceiver. Descartes’ core foundation for understanding what is important comes from three points: our thoughts about the world and the things in it could be deceptive, our power of reasoning has found ideas that are indubitable, and certainty come by way of reasoning. Once we have a certainty of God, and ourselves then we are easily able to distinguish reality from dreams, and so on. God created us and gave us reason, which tells us that our ideas of the external world come from God. God has directly provided us with the idea of the external world. The concept of existence, the self, and doubt could not have existed on its own; therefore they had to be created by someone to have put them in our mind. That creator is God, who is omnipotent and perfect. God is not a deceiver to me; God is good, so therefore what I perceive really does exist. God without existence is like a mountain without a valley. A valley does not exist if there is no mountain, and vice versa a mountain is not a mountain with out a valley. We cannot believe or think of God without existence. We know the idea of God, and that idea inevitably contains his existence. My thought on god is clear and distinct that he is existent. Descartes’ now has ‘rebuilt’ the world, solely because of his power and reasoning. Descartes’ is only able...

    Read More

  • Prove the Existence of God Using Who Has the Idea of God

    930 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Cartesian Circle is Wrong

    1602 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ircle may have had a solid foundation and belief. However, I just gave you, with supporting evidence, my view of why the Cartesian circle is wrong and why I believe that Descartes was trying to make the point that God must exist in order for him or us to even have the clear and distinct perception to dwell on the idea of God, an idea that only God himself created. I hope this solves the issue of the Cartesian circle and hopefully strengthens Descartes argument of how the circle is false and he was maybe just misunderstood. My claim will stand that the Cartesian circle was just a big misunderstanding, and Descartes, by no means, interacted with the belief and structure of this falsified circle.

    Read More

  • Descartes Meditation 1 Analysis

    958 Words  | 2 Pages

    [and] the will to deceive is undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness, and so cannot apply to God” (90). Through these words, Descartes explains that the natural light proves God’s perfect being because a deceiver is powerless and malevolent. God is not powerless and malevolent, because he is not a deceiver.

    Read More

  • Third Meditation, by Rene Descartes

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Descartes Proof Of God

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Weaknesses of Descartes' Arguments

    1636 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Descartes Universal Doubt Of Senses Analysis

    1471 Words  | 3 Pages

    We think that God is good and has created the universe. Being an omnipotent individual “nothing can be added to his [God] perfection” (Descartes, 32). Our divine being also has given us the ability to determine reliable sources, whether its food or friends. If God were to be deceptive in nature then why would he allow us to freely think in a way that would figure out the deceit? Another argument is that God would not let us know what deception is in the first place since it would imply imperfection and contradict the nature of God; “the ability to deceive seems to be an indication of cleverness or power, the will to deceive undoubtedly attests to maliciousness…deception is incompatible with God” (Descartes, 36). It would not be a concept familiar to us so we could never know of its existence. So this would clearly rule out Gods play in the fallacy of

    Read More

  • Descartes' Proof of the Existence of God in Meditation Three

    1027 Words  | 3 Pages

    This paper is intended to explain and evaluate Descartes' proof for the existence of god in Meditation Three. It shall show the weaknesses in the proof, but also give credit to the strengths in his proof. It will give a background of what Descartes has already accepted as what he truly knows. The paper will also state Descartes two major points for the existence of God and why the points can easily be proven false. The paper will also show that if a God does exist that God can in fact be an evil deceiver. The paper will also show that the idea of a perfect being cannot be conceived by an imperfect being.

    Read More

More about The Deceiving Power of God

Open Document