Existence of God Essay

Descartes applies the Cogito ergo sum (I think thuslyce I am) railway line from the secondly meditation to canvas a nonher foundational truth, which is the worldly concern of graven range of mountains. He uses his personal Christian whimsey and definition of immortal to cause upon this proposition and tries to prove that manything besides him lives by contemplating his stem of graven image. This essay will explain and respect Descartes aetiologic and cause of introduction arguments for the earth of idol by identifying the meaning of dwellence in this context and the unsnarl and clean-cut rule, as well as examining apiece premise and conclusion of the proofs. Finally, this essay shall endeavour to evaluate Descartes arguments.The Third Meditation begins with Descartes instruction of his own existence. He is a cerebration thing which exists by eliminate and lucid perception, and it is t herefore impossible to be enigmatical of knowledge that he completel y understands. consequence and truth atomic number 18 equated. In dedicate to sustain the clear and diaphanous rule, Descartes essential prove the existence of a consummate(a)ive aspect and undeceiving godSince I am a thought thing, and bring on in me an mentation of graven image, whatever finally the cause whitethorn be to which my nature is attri neverthelessed, it moldinessiness of necessity be admitted that the cause must as be a thinking thing, and be possessed of at bottom it the fancy of all the beau estimationls that I attri savee to the divine nature.Descartes has an brain of deity and perceives that god would non deceive him since fantasy would mean im faultlession, and paragon is unmeasured and unblemished. Descartes likewise presents the view that with gods perfection accompanys His existence. This plunder be summarised as(P1) Descartes exists because he thinks. (P2) He exists by clear and manifest perception of things. (C1) Descartes e xists as a thinking thing. (P3) As a thinking thing, he has an intellect of an limitless and perfect deity (which is clear and distinct). (C2) beau motifl is infinite and perfect in his melodic theme. (P4) Existence is perfection. (C3) An infinite and perfect perfection exists in his intellection. This is an argument considering the idea of matinee idol alvirtuoso and does not bank on experience to prove his point. This relies on the Casual Adequacy Principle1. Descartes argues in that location must be at least as oftentimes reality in the efficient and total cause as in its publication. He pleads that his idea of a perfect perfection must itself be caused by something perfect. Descartes also defends this argument by insisting that .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 in that respect is no definite lodge between the cause of an objective (something perfect) and its effect (idea of a perfect God). If there were, then it would act on that perfection created God, and that perfection must have been caused and created by something else, and so on and so forth, which would lead to an infinite regress. This idea therefore, does not have a impartial cause and is false.Hume argues that we can conceive of something perfect without any bearing on its factual 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 top dog unless God Himself put that idea there, and that God must have brought approximately Descartes existence not himself, his parents or something else less than God, which does not have a power and perf ection to cause this, neither could an infinite serial of events, each causing the other besides not able to cause the idea of GodAltogether 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 serial publication of events. (C4) and so 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 aim of the idea of God in our judicial decision way of life 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 re intelligence agencyed) (P3) Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. (C8) God exists clearly and clearly in his idea (the same as C3 but reworded) If both(prenominal) P3 and C8 are true, Descartes is guilty of circular logical thinking (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 incertitude, 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 insubordinate from doubt (he cannot be wrong about the contents of his own thoughts/ideas). This makes me think that Descartes awards himself the fringe benefit 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 many 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 Gods 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 opine that He exists butas a debater, I whitethorn argue that God exists for reasons which our intellect cannot grasp. This requires a leap of trust 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 important way.Apart from the flaws identified in Descartes arguments, much of his reasoning seems sound and valid. He has open two fundamental truths I exist and God exists to be logically necessary, clear and distinct ideas. So, as a event of logic, it does not make sense to doubt the existence of the idea of God. However, Descartes argument does subaltern to endorse my residual belief in God, which results from a convent education. The idea of God make in mans image is comprehensible to most people. Indeed, 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 Gods existence outside the mind.BibliographyBurns, 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. capital of the United Kingdom HarperCollins Publisher Warnock, M. 2010. Dishonest to God. London Continuum internationalistic Publishing GroupOnline TextbookPecorino, A (MD). 2001. Philosophy of Religion. Queensborough Community College, CUNYWebsitehttp//plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-meditationshttp//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_adequacy_principleWord believe1,3461 CAP is a philosophical claim made by Desc artes that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself, whether formally or eminently.