Descartes Argument For The Existence Of God
Based on Jennifer Nagel’s Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction (33–36), Descartes argues that our senses must be trustworthy because ideas that are innate to us, but defective, would not have been built into us by a God that is perfect (36). He shows this by first arguing for the existence of God, and from there he deduces that all of our clear and distinct ideas are innate and entirely trustworthy (36). By proving that all of our clear and distinct ideas are caused by God and that God is an infinite and perfect (non-deceptive) being, Descartes believes that he will be able to show that all of our clear and distinct ideas are entirely trustworthy. So he begins by proving the existence of God. The argument, in deductively valid form, could be
…show more content…
By establishing the existence of God, Descartes enables himself to argue that any idea that is clear and distinct to us is innate and completely trustworthy (36). It seems that Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is a replica of his argument for his own existence: I have an idea of myself; therefore, I exist; and, I have an idea of God; therefore, God exists.
One might wish to resist the argument because, as Nagel points out, the way that
Descartes goes about arguing, starting from the idea of God to the existence of God, implies that the idea of perfection cannot be caused by a less-than-perfect source (36). This is what is known as the causal principle, and as Nagel mentions, it is an appeal that many readers do not find completely convincing …show more content…
For example, I have a clear and distinct idea of a unicorn. Does that mean the unicorn now exists? It appears that the argument is invalid because the premises fail to provide convincing reasons for the conclusion: it seems that all that can really be concluded is that, if God exists his existence is necessary (i.e. a clear and distinct idea), and if God does not exist, his existence is impossible (i.e. an obscure and confused idea), but we have no way of knowing whether God exists or not, as Descartes does not lay out the criteria for what constitutes a “clear and distinct” idea. Not only has Descartes not proven that God exists, but neither has anyone else been able
By establishing the existence of God, Descartes enables himself to argue that any idea that is clear and distinct to us is innate and completely trustworthy (36). It seems that Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is a replica of his argument for his own existence: I have an idea of myself; therefore, I exist; and, I have an idea of God; therefore, God exists.
One might wish to resist the argument because, as Nagel points out, the way that
Descartes goes about arguing, starting from the idea of God to the existence of God, implies that the idea of perfection cannot be caused by a less-than-perfect source (36). This is what is known as the causal principle, and as Nagel mentions, it is an appeal that many readers do not find completely convincing …show more content…
For example, I have a clear and distinct idea of a unicorn. Does that mean the unicorn now exists? It appears that the argument is invalid because the premises fail to provide convincing reasons for the conclusion: it seems that all that can really be concluded is that, if God exists his existence is necessary (i.e. a clear and distinct idea), and if God does not exist, his existence is impossible (i.e. an obscure and confused idea), but we have no way of knowing whether God exists or not, as Descartes does not lay out the criteria for what constitutes a “clear and distinct” idea. Not only has Descartes not proven that God exists, but neither has anyone else been able