Existence of God - Descartes

Descartes’ Third Meditation on the Existence of God seeks to demonstrate that, despite the human tendency to mistrust everything, there is no cause to doubt God’s presence. In his argument, he begins by being dubious about the truth under all circumstances, including sense evidence, cultural presuppositions, and the critical process of thinking. According to Descartes’ logic, if anything can withstand considerable skepticism, it should be unquestionable, making it a specific knowledge basis. Descartes’ meditation demonstrates that there is reason to be skeptical of perceptual illusions.He argues that since there lacks certainty in the case that is veridical and that which is not, then its possible to be skeptic about the sensory knowledge. Additionally, he also shows that one can doubt the sensory perception since there is a possibility that everything one perceives to make up the physical world could be a fanciful fabrication of one’s imagination. Descartes also shows that one could doubt the existence of God since there is a chance of questioning everything that one understands in the world. Nonetheless, he provides a counter-argument by showing that there is enough proof that God exists hence minimizing the chances of doubting Gods existence.

Descartes’ Idea Theories and Distinct and Clear Perceptions

At the beginning of the third meditation, Descartes shows the doubtful nature of human beings. He acknowledges that he cannot trust his sense hence showing skepticism in his sensory perceptions. He shows that he is a being that Hs doubt, denial and also that affirms. He shows that he is doubtful about the sensory perceptions since they are all developed from the external world. Descartes also shows his certainty of being thinking that and that he distinctively and vividly perceives this as a fact. That is, he is a think because he exists. However, he cannot be sure unless every distinct and vivid perception is certain. As a result, he makes conclusions that anything he does perceive distinctively or of vividly is had to be true. Initially, Descartes seems to be certain of all kind of things that he is now skeptical. He shows that his senses have apprehended all these things hence he accepts that he did not independently perceive them but only had the thoughts and ideas of things that appeared on his mind. The mediator does not deny having perceived material object ideas (Descartes & Mike 122). However, he accepts that he was by inferring from his ideas that he could use his perception to inform himself about the things perceived. He is also sure about geometry and arithmetic despite the factor that he lacks certainty due to God’s deceive. To ensure that he does not get deceived by God, Descartes seeks to understand the God’s nature.

Before examining God’s nature, Descartes does categorize his ideas into different forms. To start with, he classifies them as simple ideas which he explains as images of different things like Chimera, an Angel, God or man. Secondly, he ranks them as judgments, emotions, or volitions. He explains the second classification as the presence of an idea which acts as an object’s though as well as a further thing like fear, an affirmation that is directed towards the thoughts object. According to the Mediator, there is no chance of mistaking him concerning independent ideas nor emotions or violations. He emphasizes that mistakes can only arise while using judgment. A common judgment error is judging that an individual’s ideas in mind resemble the things that are outside the mind. Therefore, considering ideas that are in as thought modes and not alluding to them as anything out of mind, should Make one immune from doubt.

With respect to the mediation, there are only three idea sources: they could be innate, adventitious and emanating from the outside or could be invented by human beings as well. The Mediator does accept that he can’t be sure where ideas emanate from and even suspects that all ideas are innate, invented or came from an adventure. However, the Mediator does focus on adventitious ideas and the reason he thinks he emanates from the external world. He argues that he cannot hinder himself from the heat when it is hot. Therefore, he makes assumptions that external sources transmit adventurous ideas in their likeness.

Part Two: Descartes Theory of Ideas

Descartes reasons that every idea is a ‘more mode of thought’ hence making them equal: they have an equal sense of formal reality. However, the representation of each idea does differ greatly as well as their objective reality. Therefore, God’s idea entails an objective reality compared to the idea of another thing like a tree. According to the Mediator, no impact could have a greater reality amount compared to its cause. Illustratively, everything that exists as a being has to be created by a thing that has a greater or equal reality amount. That is, a Stone could be made through chipping off a vast piece of rock, due to the factor that the larger rock piece entails more reality, nonetheless, a stone cannot be created from color since it is more realistic compared to a color. Descartes also proposed that an idea could be caused by something with a formal reality that equals the objective reality. This proves that a stone’s idea could only be caused by a large rock or stone but cannot be caused by color. Hence, the mediator assures that the ideas can result from other ideas, but there has to something that exceeds that idea is the cause of the idea. This leads to the conclusion that the first cause of idea has to be something that has at least formal reality as the notions objective reality.

According to Descartes, if he does conceive an idea with objective reality that it has to arise from a particular cause that has formal reality than the idea posses, he reasons that he then understands that there has to be something existing in his mind. His notions of animals, angels, and people do arise from himself despite the factor that there is no existence of such things. Likewise, corporeal things entail no great thing that could originate from the mediator. With respect to the Wax reasoning, he concludes that he could only distinctively and perceive various properties like shape, duration, extension, motion, substance, and number when evaluating corporeal things. The Mediator acknowledges that he poses most of the above properties (Notturno 78). Despite as thinking the thing he could lack shape, extension, and size, Their properties are the modes of the body substance as well as being a thinking thing; he is also a substance hence has more reality compared to these ways. According to Descartes, the reality’s basic building blocks are referred to as substances; which could exist independently and are also indestructible. In accordance to Cartesian ontology, there are two major forms of substance: minds and bodies. Of substances there exist minds that are finite, like angels and people and there are infinite minds like God. Hence, Descartes does assert that he is more of a mind and not a body.

Part Three: The Existence of God and the Cartesian Cycle

By considering God as an infinite, supremely intelligent, eternal, independent and immutable substance which created everything else including man, Descartes shows recognition that God has a more objective reality compared to the formal reality. That is God considered both an i9nfonte and finite substance. Therefore, since God’s ideas originated in the Mediator, God has to be the cause of the idea

Hence has to be in existence. Additionally, Descartes does offer a counter argument that he could conceive an infinite being via negation. Skepticism and desire arise from fathoming that humans beings lack something. However, humans could not be aware of the lack until they know of a perfect existence that posses the things humans lack. The mediator shows that, despite the factor that he could be skeptical about all other things, he has no reason to doubt the existence of God (Rorty 70). This is due to the factor that he has a distinct and vivid perception of the existence of God. The notion has an infinite objective reality hence it has a higher chance of being true compared to any other idea.

As a result, the Mediator does welcome the likelihood that he could be supremely perfect, his shortcomings are potentialities that are within him and that he is gradually making improvement towards perfection. Therefore, in case of perfection is a potentiality within the mediator, chances are God’s idea could have been created in him without any external cause. Descartes does reject having God’s idea developed through an external cause with respect to three reasons: First, God is actual and not potential; secondly, if the mediator has constant improvement, he will never attain perfection: third, a partial being cannot be a being at all. That is God’s idea must have been caused by a thing that has traits of an actual, infinite being.

According to Descartes, if he existed without God, he could have emanated from his parents, or any other being that is not as perfect as God. In case he got his existence from his self, there would be no reason that he has to have desires and doubts. Additionally, he also cannot reason through supposing that he have always existed as well as never been into being. Descartes shows that there is always a force that always preserves him through creating a new him instantly hence is continuous existence (Rorty 70). Being a thinking being, the mediator shows that he has to be aware of the preservation power despite that it emerged within him. In case his parents or another perfect being did create him, the creator did endow him with the notion of God. Therefore, if the creator is finite, then one should question on how it managed to possess a notion of a God who is infinite. Tracing this could entail a chain of limitless creators, how one has ‘to eventually come into conclusion that notion of God did originate from God only, therefore, it not from a finite being.

The Mediator does conclude that God’s does exist and there is no way through which he can doubt his existence. However, he proceeds to question how he received the notion of God. He argues that the notion is not adventurous nor is it an invention. Therefore, he concludes that Gods idea emanated from him, it was innate. Therefore, Descartes proves that he must be a creation of God hence has the notion of God put in him already. He vividly and distinctly has the perception that God is not a deceiver. This conclusion is based on the argument that the lack of defect or the perfect nature of God does alienate him from deception since deception is based on various defects.

Descartes mediation three aims at showing that there is no reason or way one could doubt the existence of God. Through his meditation, he uses various strategies of proof that God exists. To know how Descartes proves God’s existence and its resistance to doubt, there is need to have an overview of his proofing strategies. At the beginning of his mediation, he shows that the only thing he is certain about is his existence and being a living thing. Therefore, he concludes that he understands these facts via a distinct and vivid [perception as well as reasons that prove his vivid perceptions are true (Sorell 224) . To affirm the truth regarding distinct and vivid perceptions, he has to prove that there exists a benevolent God. He argues that incase God was a deceiver; he could have created deception even in accordance to the mediators distinct and clear perceptions. However, it is vivid that proving whether God exists is dependent on Descartes having a vivid perception of God’s notion. His proof has been described to fit in the Cartesian circle. Descartes is focused on claiming that: one can have the certainty of his or her vivid perception if only God does exist; one can comprehend that God exists since there is already as distinctly and clear perspective on the notion of God.

God role in the meditations is also another vital strategy of examining doubt in human beings. With respect to the reading, there is no way through which God can be used as a confirmation of distinct and vivid perceptions. In case Descartes made efforts to, it could make no sense trying to prove God’s existence through human intellect until there is proof of his existence. Therefore, the meditations manage to bring about God as a buffer to any doubt but not as the confirmation of distinct and clear perceptions. Therefore, people fathom the different and clear perceptions of God. However, his existence also gives certainty that there is a chance of not having any perceptions. With respect to Meditation Three: it is a fact that one knows the existence of God by possessing a different and vivid perception of God’s notion. However, critics have described the meditation as problematic since it does restructure the manner in which people fathom meditations. The distinct and vivid perceptions become the major knowledge foundation rather than God.

Notably, Descartes’ proof of God’s existence entails various derivatives that were used among various scholastic philosophers. The proof is mainly based on causal reasoning that suggests that there has to be a causative factor of the notion of God that should be as great as God. Despite the idea that God might have been introduced to people by their parents, their relatives, priest or friends, the root suggestion lies at the end of the causal chain. That is, the first cause to create the idea of God. The proof that backs the first cause usually shows that there has to a constant mover at the source of every change in the world. Nonetheless, various philosophers neglected this ideology arguing that it is based on a faulty fathoming of causation. Modern scholars widely accept that there lacks any proof of Gods existence which has also made the topic on Gods proof less popular among scholars (Cahoone 45). Philosophers agree that the existence of God cannot be proved via intellectual means hence making Descartes argument less sound.

Nonetheless, Descartes’ argument does play its objected role. Despite its reliance on the causative chain, it is evident that there is no way through which one can doubt God. Therefore, it is possible for human being to have doubts about everything in the world from their ideas to other external objects. However, skepticism cannot be applied towards God’s existence. Basing the argument of Descartes’ argument, the first idea about God existence must have been put in place by God himself. As a result, this makes it hard to assume that God does not exist whereas there is an idea of him existing. Apart from that, the factor that God is a perfect form of human beings, it is evident then that he exists since a human being has got various desires and imperfections that show he is the creature. Additionally, Descartes proof of God existence proofs that no one can doubt God through the provision of his two arguments, he asserts that God existence is a major reason why individual have perceptions of him as well as the perception of God’s is a major proof that he exists. Additionally, the manner in which Descartes organizes his arguments enhances successful proving that God cannot be doubted. He beings by showing how he doubts every idea and perception that crosses his mind. Eventually, he divides his ideas from being adventurous, invented and innate. He proceeds by showing finite and infinite ideas hence concluding that God is an infinite idea since his origin cannot be traced. As a result, he must have been the one who games human beings the idea of himself after creating them. Despite the factor that modern scholars deny the credibility of Descartes proof of causation. It is undeniable that, causation is an explanation that vividly depicts God with all his; traits: supreme, powerful, and shows that he is the one that initiated the idea of God in human beings. Eventually, these ideas were assimilated from priest relatives and parents but mainly originated from him. As a result, Descartes’ meditation is a significant reading that aims at proving that no one can doubt God.

Works Cited

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Cahoone, Lawrence E. The Dilemma of Modernity: Philosophy, Culture, and Anti-Culture. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press, 1988. Print.

Cunning, David. Argument and Persuasion in Descartes’ Meditations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Internet resource.

Descartes, René, and Mike Moriarty. Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Internet resource.

Notturno, Mark A. Perspectives on Psychologism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989. Print.

Rorty, Amélie. Essays on Descartes’ Meditations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 986. Print.

Sorell, Tom. Descartes Reinvented. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005. Print.

Bottom of Form