Existence of God Essay

Descartes applies the ‘Cogito ergo sum’ (‘I think therefore I am’) argument from the second meditation to prove another foundational truth, which is the existence of God. He uses his personal Christian belief and definition of God to build upon this proposition and tries to prove that something besides him exists by contemplating his idea of God. This essay will explain and assess Descartes’ aetiological and cause of existence arguments for the existence of God by identifying the meaning of existence in this context and the clear and distinct rule, as well as examining each premise and conclusion of the proofs. Finally, this essay shall attempt to evaluate Descartes’ arguments. The Third Meditation begins with Descartes’ affirmation of his own existence. He is a thinking thing which exists by clear and distinct perception, and it is therefore impossible to be doubtful of knowledge that he completely understands. Certainty and truth are equated. In order to establish the clear and distinct rule, Descartes must prove the existence of a perfect and undeceiving God: â€Å"Since I am a thinking thing, and have in me an idea of God, whatever finally the cause may be to which my nature is attributed, it must necessarily be admitted that the cause must equally be a thinking thing, and possess within it the idea of all the perfections that I attribute to the divine nature.† Descartes has an idea of God and perceives that God would not deceive him since deception would mean imperfection, and God is infinite and perfect. Descartes also presents the idea that with God’s perfection comes His existence. This can be summarised as: |(P1) |Descartes exists because he thinks. | |(P2) |He exists by clear and distinct perception of things. | |(C1) |Descartes exists as a thinking thing. | |(P3) |As a thinking thing, he has an idea of an infinite and perfect God (which is clear and distinct). | |(C2) |God is infinite and perfect in his idea. | |(P4) |Existence is perfection. | |(C3) |An infinite and perfect God exists in his idea. | This is an argument considering the idea of God alone and does not rely on experience to prove his point. This relies on the ‘Casual Adequacy Principle’[1]. Descartes argues: â€Å"There must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect.† He claims that his idea of a perfect God must itself be caused by something perfect. Descartes also defends this argument by insisting that: â€Å"†¦.certainly not nothing, and so it cannot come from nothing.† For example, the existence of a stone (which previously did not exist) must be produced by something which contains the components of a stone. The cause must have more reality than its effect. The flaw here is that there is no definite connection between the cause of an object (something perfect) and its effect (idea of a perfect God). If there were, then it would follow that perfection created God, and that perfection must have been caused and created by something else, and so o n and so forth, which would lead to an infinite regress. This idea therefore, does not have a straightforward cause and is false. Hume argues that we can conceive of something perfect without any bearing on its actual and immediate existence. It is logically possible that some ideas have no cause. If the idea of God has no cause, Descartes’ proposition is false and the argument fails. Another variation of this argument is that the idea that God cannot exist in Descartes’ mind unless God Himself put that idea there, and that God must have brought about Descartes’ existence; not himself, his parents or something else less than God, which does not have a power and perfection to cause this, neither could an infinite series of events, each causing the other but not able to cause the idea of God: â€Å"Altogether then, it must be concluded that the mere fact that I exist and I have within me the idea of the most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.† This can be summarised as: |(P5) |If the cause of Descartes’ idea of God must not come from himself, his parents, something else or infinite series of | | |events. | |(C4) |Then the cause of Descartes’ idea of God is God. | |(C3) |An infinite and perfect God exists in his idea. | |(P6) |Neither himself, his parents, something else, nor an infinite series of events causes Descartes’ existence. | |(C5) |Descartes’ existence is caused by God. | |(P7) |If God created Descartes. | |(C6) |Then God exists. | This argument depends more on assertion than logical progression, but Descartes goes on to try and prove through the ‘aetiological’ or ‘trademark argument’ that the presence of the idea of God in our mind means that God has stamped it there. It is innate and cannot be explained by experience. Descartes’ idea of God is clear and distinct, and by God he means infinity and perfection. This can be summarised as: |(P3) |Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. | |(P8) |Only something infinite and perfect can create something infinite and perfect. | |(P9) |The only infinite and perfect being is God. | |(C7) |The idea of God must be created by God (the same as C4 but reworded) | |(P3) |Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. | |(C8) |God exists clearly and distinctly in his idea (the same as C3 but reworded) | If both P3 and C8 are true, Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning (begging the question fallacy). This argument relies upon its conclusion. It also follows God exists only as an idea. However, Descartes claims that there are different kinds of clear and distinct perceptions; one that could be subjected to doubt, for instance: 1 + 1 = 2 is a judgement (which corresponds to things that exist independently of him) and can be doubted unless God confirms it, and, therefore, potentially doubtful. The other is that his clear and distinct perception that God exists is an idea with no judgement attached and somehow immune from doubt (he cannot be wrong about the contents of his own thoughts/ideas). This makes me think that Descartes awards himself the prerogative of distinguishing ideas that can be clearly and distinctly perceived from those which cannot. In this essay, and in Descartes’ meditation, the word ‘idea’ has come up numerous times. This leads me to conclude that the only proof that Descartes manages to establish is that God exists as an idea. He does not have to build the reality of God’s empirical existence into an idea that is already clear and distinct. However, it does not follow that anything represented by such an idea actually exists, except, of course, in the case of God (again, probably one of Descartes’ prerogatives). For example, within my reasoning, I possess the concept of God but do not have to believe that He exists; but as a believer, I may argue that God exists for reasons which our intellect cannot grasp. This requires a ‘leap of faith’ rather than hard evidence. Similarly, someone may argue that they can conceive of there being dragons. We all understand what dragons are, but do not necessarily believe they exist. It is probably therefore necessary to build empirical, actual existence into the argument to prove that anything exists in a concrete and meaningful way. Apart from the flaws identified in Descartes’ arguments, much of his reasoning seems sound and valid. He has established two fundamental truths: ‘I exist’ and ‘God exists’ to be logically necessary, clear and distinct ideas. So, as a matter of logic, it does not make sense to doubt the existence of the idea of God. However, Descartes’ argument does little to endorse my residual belief in God, which results from a convent education. The idea of God made in man’s image is comprehensible to most people. Indeed, â€Å"The idea of God is central to religion, and without it, religion would not exist.† (Mary Warnock). This is a perfectly valid argument but no proof of God’s existence outside the mind. Bibliography Burns, E. and Law, S. 2004. Philosophy for AS and A2. Oxon: Routledge Cottingham, C. 1996. Descartes Meditations of First Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Thornes, N. 2008. AQA Philosophy. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd Vardy, P. 1999. The Puzzle of God. London: HarperCollins Publisher Warnock, M. 2010. Dishonest to God. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Online Textbook Pecorino, A (MD). 2001. Philosophy of Religion. Queensborough Community College, CUNY Website http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-meditations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_adequacy_principle Word Count 1,346 ———————– [1] CAP is a philosophical claim made by Descartes that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, whether formally or eminently.