Descartes Proof for the Existence of God
The purpose of my essay will be to examine Descartes’ argument for the
existence of God. First, I will review Descartes’ proof for the existence of
God. Then I will examine the reasons that Descartes has for proving God’s
existence. I will also discuss some consequences that appear as a result of
God’s existence. Finally, I will point out some complications and problems that
exist within the proof.
The basic problem with most religions in the world has always been that they
presuppose faith; that is one cannot be reasoned into believing in a religion,
if such was not the case then we would have seen a huge migration to one
religion or another. In any given religion, the main proof of God’s existence
is the fact that scriptures -- whichever ones they may be -- inform us of his
existence and his powers. Then again, we only believe in these scriptures
because we think that they come from God. Generally saying, this is a circular
argument that cannot be used as a proof. We would all like to believe that we
believe in God and our given religion because of faith. But what is faith? And
how can a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim all have the same certainty about their
given religions without being in any doubt of their minds as to the certainty
of their religions and faith.
Descartes set out to build a set of arguments designed to prove God’s
existence. On those, he constructed all of his other arguments. His goal in
proving God’s existence was dual; he wanted to build ground to base his
arguments on, that is that he exists ...etc. That goal will not be discussed in
too much depth in this paper. It is his other goal to prove beyond a doubt
God’s existence to all non-believers.
Descartes starts by rejecting all his beliefs, so that he would not be
misleaded by any misconceptions from reaching the truth. He notices that by
doubting all of his previous ideas he is thinking in. Descartes determines that
in order for him to think, he must exist. He states that he knows that to be the
case beyond any doubt, and that this is the first principle of the philosophy
he is seeking. From that single observation he deduces a rule that he will
build his entire argument upon. Descartes notices that the idea of his
existence is very clear and distinct in his mind; based upon this clarity, and
the fact that he has just determined his own existence, he infers that the
things that he sees as very clear and very distinct are all true.
Descartes employs another interesting rule for his logic, or way of thinking:
an objective reality cannot exist without formal reality. That is to say that
an idea cannot originate without a cause. The ideas can be less perfect than
their cause, but they cannot be more perfect. He also explains that those ideas
in us that apparently do not have formal reality, such as a mermaid, are merely
combinations of other formal realities- in this case a woman and a mermaid --
and thus do not invalidate the rule.
Descartes also explains the difference between being an idea and being merely
an opposite of an idea. He uses heat and cold as his example; whereas heat is
an idea, cold is simply non-existence of heat. That is a very important idea
that he uses in his argument to exclude a potential critique of his argument.
Descartes, after establishing his rules, explains that he knows that he is not
perfect. He knows that because he doubts, and he can clearly see that knowing
is more perfect than doubting. From that he determines that within him lies
this idea of a perfect being, and that he is unable to come to such an idea by
himself. Descartes concludes that such an idea must have a formal reality, a
cause. This cause, he explains, could not have originated from a less perfect
reality or being, since he has already established that ideas can be less
perfect than their cause but never more perfect. He then determines that this
idea could not have been composed of several ideas or causes because
\"composition attests to dependence and that dependence is manifestly a
defect\". And since God, or the idea of God, contains within it all
perfections, God was not composed this way. Descartes also determines several
qualities he deduces that God possesses simply by observing himself. He
determines that whatever ideas he had, if they contained perfections then God
would possess them, and if they were marked by any imperfections then God would
not possess them.
Descartes’ next point is that the idea of God contains within itself God’s
existence in much the same way that geometrical arguments contain their own
proofs and properties. He explains that although the idea of a triangle
contains within itself certain properties, such as having three sides and that
the summary of all angles equals one hundred and eighty degrees. There was
nothing within that idea that proves the triangles’ existence. By applying that
logic, Descartes determines that since the idea of a God contains within itself
existence, and as much as existence being perfect, then the existence of God,
or the idea of God is at least as certain as geometrical arguments. Combining
that with his ideas of objective reality he determines that God’s existence is
at least as certain as anything else’s existence. God’s existence, to Descartes
is at least as certain as the existence of the stars, the sky, the earth, or
indeed, even more than having a body. It is unclear whether he believes God’s
existence to be more certain than his own thinking.
Descartes’ main reason for proving God’s existence is this: whatever
perfections he possesses are deduced from and followed by God. From that he can
say that his precision and distinctness of thought derives from God such that
it is certain that whatever he sees very clearly and distinctly is true.
If Descartes or I for that matter exist is certain, then the fact that I study
my existence proves it. What is not clear to me is the conclusion that can be
drawn from this fact. Descartes observed a quality within that truth, that is
he observed that his existence is very clear and distinct, and he used that quality
as a rule. Therefore, all things clear or distinct are true. That is no truer
than saying that all ideas that are unclear or confusing to me are not true no
matter what. Also, the existence of God depends on the precision and
distinctness with which we perceive the idea of God, for if it was not clear
and distinct then it would not necessarily be true. But the precision and
distinctness of our thoughts depends on the existence of God. That is no less
circular and argument than the one applied by the more traditional worldview
mentioned in the second paragraph.
Descartes also establishes that he does have within him an idea of a perfect
being and that he is imperfect. Then he uses his imperfect judgment to observe
and examine ideas within him and respects them or removes them from the idea of
God. By doing this he is assumes that his judgment, as to what is perfection
and what is not, is as perfect as the idea of God is. For if he did not think
that his judgment was as perfect as the idea of God, he would not have used it
to determine the qualities that God has. Moreover, Descartes declares that he
has an idea of a perfect being that is not composed, and then he examines his
own ideas of perfection to compose an idea of that perfect being’s qualities.
Another problem that I found studying Descartes was his use of the concepts of
formal and objective reality. For me to have an idea, it would have to
necessarily exist. It is difficult to understand because just as we can think
of a God, we can think of a being so absolutely imperfect that it does not
exist, since existence is perfection. But since it has an objective reality,
according to Descartes, it must have a formal reality, what is almost
impossible.
Descartes was obviously a man of great intelligence, who influenced the course
of progress of Western Civilization. His inventions in the fields of
Philosophy, Mathematics, Geometry, and science as a whole are undeniable. In
his work he was very modest, always states himself no more gifted than anyone, but
we can feel arrogance in his conclusions. For example, only his method would
deliver humanity, he will complete the debate of God’s existence, his judgment
is right to describe characteristics of God, etc. I think Descartes succeeded
in some parts of his proof for the existence of God, but failed in proving
God’s existence from a logical point of view. The fact that there are educated
men of all religions proves that anybody can be right in his own description of
existence of God.
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy.