Existence of God Essay

Descartes applies the Cogito ergo sum (I think t herefore I am) command from the second guess to turn out a nonher foundational truth, which is the existence of immortal. He uses his personal Christian imprint and definition of idol to condition upon this proposition and tries to prove that something besides him exists by contemplating his melodic theme of divinity. This essay will explain and assess Descartes aetiological and font of existence aims for the existence of god by identifying the meaning of existence in this context and the clear and distinct rule, as well as examining separately premise and conclusion of the proofs. Fin all(prenominal)y, this essay shall attempt to evaluate Descartes accounts.The Third venture 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 surmiseful of experience that he completely understands. Certainty and truth are equ ated. In baseball club to establish the clear and distinct rule, Descartes must(prenominal) prove the existence of a pure(a) and undeceiving idolSince I am a thinking thing, and turn over in me an nous of deity, whatever finally the shit may be to which my nature is attri exclusivelyed, it must necessarily be admitted that the slip must as be a thinking thing, and possess within it the paper of all the graven images that I attribute to the divine nature.Descartes has an vagary of God and perceives that God would not deceive him since deception would mean imperfection, and God is unconditi unmatchabled and perfect. Descartes also presents the conceit that with Gods perfection comes His existence. This shag 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 stemma considering the idea of God alone and does not rely on experience to prove his point. This relies on the Casual Adequacy Principle1. Descartes argues There must be at least as frequently reality in the in force(p) 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 .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 construct more reality than its effect. The flaw here is that there is no definite connection between the cause of an tendency (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 on and so forth, which would lead to an infinite regress. This idea therefore, does not have a frank 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. some other variation of this argument is that the idea that God cannot exist in Descartes see unless God Himself put that idea there, and that God must have brought roughly 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, for each one causing the other but not able to cause the idea of GodAltogether then, it must be concluded that the mere item that I exist and I have within me the idea of the most(prenominal) perfect world, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God hence 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) incomplete 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) D escartes has a clear and distinct idea of God. (P8) Only something infinite and perfect can create something infinite and perfect. (P9) The all infinite and perfect being is God. (C7) The idea of God must be created by God (the corresponding 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 diametric 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 judgemen t 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 perquisite 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 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 believe that He exists butas a believer, I may argue that God exists for reasons which our intellect cannot grasp. This requires a restrain of faith rather tha n 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 cover and meaningful way.Apart from the flaws identified in Descartes arguments, much of his reasoning seems vocalise and valid. He has established two fundamental truths I exist and God exists to be logically necessary, clear and distinct ideas. So, as a reckon 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 mans image is graspable 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 out side 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 pressing 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 publication 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 calculation1,3461 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.