preview

Descartes Argument For The Existence Of God

Better Essays

I will argue that Descartes’ principle of perfection which he uses to prove the existence of God is unsound. I will do this by first examining what is meant by the term ‘more reality’. After this, I will discuss the ideas surrounding ‘perfection’ and how Descartes derives a perfect God from a malevolent deceiver. I will conclude that Descartes’ use of perfection to aid God’s existence is implausible.

To deduce whether Descartes’ argument is successful in proving the existence of God, we must first consider what Descartes meant by the phrase “more reality”. Descartes states:
“Now, it is evident by the natural light of reason that there must be as much reality in an efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause. For I ask: where …show more content…

For example, I can conceive of a unicorn by experiencing a horse and a horned animal such as a goat. However, the thought of the unicorn does not mean that it exists. The idea is fictitious and is a mere construct of the imagination; therefore it has the lowest reality. In light of this, Descartes uses this casual principle to argue for a first cause; this is God. Descartes understands the term God to mean:
“...some infinite substance, which is independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful, and by which both I, and everything else that exists (if anything else exists), were created.” (Meditations III; 38)
This substance must be infinite in order to create finite beings, modes and accidents. To create a substance, the cause must have a higher formal reality than its predecessor. For example, a stone cannot be created by anything with less formal reality such as a property like colour. Descartes considers God to be the first cause. Due to this to say that God is perfect is to suggest that he has an infinite degree of formal reality. Therefore, he has an infinite degree of objective reality. He doesn’t require or rely on anything for his own existence. He has always existed and will keep on …show more content…

By producing a counterexample, Gaunilo shows that this illogical jump is reductio ad absurdum. Descartes commits the Naturalistic Fallacy as he claims what ought to exist, is existing. This illogical leap from the mental world to the real world implies what we can conceive to exist in the mental world, must exist in the real world. Nonetheless, it could be argued that we are describing the same being using different terminology. We are only touching on part of God’s essence and must use our rationality to understand ‘God’ better because our empirical senses deceive us. This is shown in the analogy of the blind men and the elephant. They all gather different ideas of the elephant by touching a different part of it but never completely understand it as a whole. Theoretically, they are all correct. But they must expand their knowledge to understand the elephant completely. However, Gassendi argues that like mathematical infinity, we scale up God’s perfection. By observing those we consider to be perfect beings; for example, Mother Teresa, we conclude there must be an infinite perfection. Therefore, we do not have an innate idea of God but are scaling up ideas that we perceive

Get Access