Descartes Proof for Gods Existence - Term Paper Example

of Descartes’ Proof for God’s Existence Rene Descartes offers three rationalistic proofs for the existence of God. Herein, I shall argue that Descartes fails to prove God’s existence in any of his said proofs. I will divide my paper by discussing first Descartes’ argument, then my objection. I shall enumerate all three arguments of Descartes in proving the existence of God. Then I shall explore possible responses to my said objections in the next section, along with my conclusion regarding the issue at hand. Before discussing Descartes’ Proofs for God’s existence, it is necessary to discuss first his theory of ideas and causes. Ideas have three main features. First, where they come from, what kind of reality they have, and what they refer to. Under the first feature, Descartes enumerates three kinds of ideas, namely, innate, factitious and adventitious. Descartes defines innate ideas as those with which we are born with and which are self-evident to reason. An example here is mathematical ideas. Factitious ideas on the other hand are inventions of our imagination. An example here is mermaids, unicorns, and the like. And adventitious ideas are those which are based on sense perceptions. They come to us externally, which nature seem to suggest to us, and come despite our will. Under the second feature, Descartes defines these having an actual or formal reality. Herein, for as long as our mind can conceive of it clearly and distinctly, they exist “actually” in my mind. And under the third feature, Descartes claims that they possess “objective reality” i.e. they refer to objects which exist externally to us. Furthermore, Descartes claims that only innate and adventitious ideas possess objective reality, and that in order for something to exist, they must possess both actual and formal reality, as well as objective reality. Moreover, Descartes defines an idea as an effect of causes. Herein, he formulates three basic propositions in his theory of causes, namely, that there must be as much reality in the cause to that of the effect, something cannot come from nothing, and that something less perfect cannot come from something more perfect. Given the aforementioned discussion, Descartes defines God as the infinite and perfect being who possesses all the good qualities in their most eminent degree. Given as such, let us take a look at Descartes’ proofs for the existence of God. First Argument The first argument he proposes is based on this theory of ideas and causes, as well as his doctrine of innate ideas. The argument goes as follows: 1. By definition, ideas are the effects of causes 2. There must be as much reality in the cause to that of its effect 3. Something cannot come from nothing 4. Something more perfect cannot come from something less perfect 5. X has a clear and distinct idea of God as a perfect being 6. Since ideas are effects of causes, then something must have caused X having such an idea 7. Since there must be as much reality in the cause to that of its effect, and since something less perfect cannot come from some thing more perfect, then God exists as the only possible cause for X’s idea of God as a perfect being, because 8. God exists as the only possible cause for X’s idea of God as a perfect being for, something cannot come from nothing. Furthermore, Descartes backs up his argument using his doctrine of innate ideas, which claims that God imprinted this idea, of a perfect being, in us from the moment we were born. So God must be the cause of X’s idea of God. And X’s idea of God originates from God alone. For, “having proven that God exists, God would not deceive us in what is self evident to reason He has given us” (Lavine 105). 9. Therefore, God exists Objection to the First Argument Based on Descartes first argument for the existence of God, it seems that it does not suffice to prove that God exists. For, it is possible that another person, other than God, is the cause of X’s having an idea of a perfect being. “They argued that an individual person could cause the idea of an infinite being, since it is merely a negative idea, a negation of our limitations or finiteness” (Lavine 105). In other words, God is simple a being without X’s limitations. So why couldn’t another individual be the cause of X’s idea of God? Another problem that I see with Descartes’ argument is his use and definition of an idea, as well as his doctrine of innate ideas. Given that ideas are effects of causes, what then is the cause of Descartes’ doctrine of innate ideas? That is to say, the idea of God implanting an idea of a perfect being in us since birth, is an effect of what cause? God? That would beg the question. Indeed, the third problem in Descartes’ argument for God’s existence is that it leads to a vicious cycle often called as the Cartesian Circle. Why? “Because in order to prove that God exists, Descartes had had to use the very clear and distinct ideas that God’s existence was supposed to guarantee. So God guarantees my clear and distinct ideas: but my clear and distinct ideas are what guarantee the existence of God” (Lavine 108). Circular arguments as such are not valid arguments. Thus, I believe that Descartes fails to prove that God exists given his first argument. Second Argument Regardless of the failure of the first argument, Descartes provides another argument to prove that God exists. This second attempt uses a process of elimination. It begins by pondering on whether X, who has an idea of a perfect being, can I exist without this perfect being, i.e. God. So X enumerates all the possible causes for his own existence: 1. Myself? X cannot be the cause of himself, for if so, X would have given himself all forms of perfections. But X does not have the power to do so. 2. Parents? X’s parents also cannot be the cause of his existence for if X traces back the cause of his ancestors, it would lead to an infinite regress, which cannot be the case for there would not be a beginning. 3. There must be a cause of my existence as a thinking thing 4. Therefore God exists as the only cause of my existence, for there must be a first cause. Objections to the Second Argument I argue that Descartes argument is fallacious and is therefore invalid. Why? Because it is impossible to know all the possible causes for his own existence; that would entail that Descartes was omniscient, which is not the case. So the question by which he begins his proof is therefore unjustifiable. Furthermore, granted that Descartes has exhausted the possibilities for his existence, why does it have to be God? Why can’t it be another being other than God? If X was a Buddhist, then he would not agree, nor would a Taoist. Herein, The Cartesian Idea of God is clearly a product of being socialized into cultures that are Judeo-Christian, just as Descartes, and the other scholastics were during that time (Lavine 106). Therefore, his second argument similarly fails to prove the existence of God. Third Argument Nevertheless, regardless of the failure of the first two arguments, Descartes offers a third argument for the existence of God. Here, the focus is on X’s clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God. This is also knows as Descartes’ ontological argument, which goes as follows: 1. God is an infinite and perfect being 2. Perfection entails existence 3. God, who is infinite and perfect, must therefore exist, for without existence, he would then be imperfect and thus contrary to our definition of God. 4. Therefore, God exists insofar that his essence involves his existence; that his being a “perfect being” involves “existing” Furthermore, Descartes uses an analogy of a triangle by arguing that: all the properties that X clearly and distinctly conceive God to have, truly belong to God, just as the properties of a triangle that I clearly and distinctly perceive, such as the sum of its angles equating to 180 degrees, belong to a triangle. Objections to the Third Argument This third argument is perhaps the weakest among Descartes’ three said proofs for God’s existence. Why? Well, first of all, I do not see how this is an “argument.” It seems to me that it is only a mere “definition” of what God is, i.e. an infinite and perfect being. And a definition is hardly sufficient to prove the existence of God. Moreover, his use of the aforementioned analogy of a triangle is also a bad case of an argument from analogy. A triangle and God does not seem close in any way, so as to make an analogy based on the properties of a triangle, compared to that of God’s. I do agree that the properties of a triangle, i.e. its angles being equal to 180 degrees, are something that I clearly and distinctly perceive. But to compare it to God’s properties is something I can’t seem to fathom, for these are two different entities altogether. Response to the Objections What are the possible responses one can think of given the aforesaid objections against the legitimacy of Descartes’ proof? If Descartes were still alive today, how would he defend himself? Lets take it step by step. Regarding the first objection, Descartes would probably respond by arguing that the idea of an infinite being is not merely the negation of the finite. For, the concept of “finite” or man’s imperfect knowledge, requires a basis of perfection. Descartes would ask, how would I know that I am imperfect if I did not have an innate pre-conception of the concept of perfect? In other words, our idea of God is within us already, for the very fact that we could compare such ideas and judge them proves to show that we are only finite and imperfect beings. Regarding the second objection, Descartes would probably argue that his use of the term “God” is indeed universal. For, despite who the God of other religions may be, it is nevertheless a God. None was specified in terms of the name of the God I am referring to. So I believe that this objection does not suffice. And regarding the third objection, Descartes would reply by claiming that, as a logician, philosopher and mathematician myself, this is indeed an argument. An argument is a piece of logical reasoning that contains a premise and a conclusion (Copi and Cohen 7). My argument does contain a premise and a conclusion. Therefore, this is not a mere definition, but is an argument nonetheless. Conclusion Given this analysis of Descartes’ three rationalistic proofs for God’s existence, I believe that Descartes fails to provide a strong counter-argument, based on the objections presented. Therefore, he does not successfully provide a single proof to show that God exists. And so it is. Works Cited Copi, Irving and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic 13th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. Print. Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method and The Meditations. Trans. F. E. Sutcliffe. London: Penguin Books, 1968. Print. Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy With Selections From the Objections and Replies. Ed. John Cottingham. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print. Lavine, Thelma Z. From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophical Quest. New York: Bantam Books, 1985. Print. Read More