Descartes Argument For The Existence Of God

Descartes’ Argument for the Existence of God
Descartes’ Meditations serve as a faithful yet skeptical support for the existence of God. He uses a method of doubt, calling all of knowledge into question, to pursue a deep level of God and human’s existence. He creates controversial circular reasoning when he creates rules to define the existence of God through the use of the Truth Principle, the causal principle, and the belief that God is no deceiver, which all support one another.
To argue the existence of God succeeding the method of doubt, an understanding of fundamental truth must be retained; The Cogito, or the argument for existence. Despite the ability to doubt and question everything, one phenomenon remains true: the thinking of the
thinker. The edict that “I exist” is necessarily true in every context. Each time it is uttered or perceived with the mind, it cannot be doubted. This tautology is certain in that it proves itself. If the act of doubting the self happens, then there must be a reason for it, and if there is a reason, the act of thinking is happening, and somewhere the source of thinking exists. A thinker is witnessing their existence by thinking.
Having convinced himself of The Cogito, Descartes proceeds to extend his new knowledge of self-awareness to prove the existence of God. He verifies that he is a thinking thing, which logically leads him to comprehend what it is like to see the truth. Thus, The Truth Rule is created when he says, “I now seem to be able to posit as a general rule that everything that I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true is true” (Modern Philosophy, p. 47 column 2). Proving God’s existence is the means to verifying the certainty of the Truth Rule. His foundation is that he is a thinking thing, and he builds that philosophy through the search of the source of thinking, which he believes is a God, who is no deceiver. The idea that something exists must be brought upon by something that exists.
Descartes accentuates the importance of distinguishing formal reality, and objective reality.
Formal reality is the degree of existence that a thing has. There are certain degrees of reality, God (if he exists) with the maximum amount of infinite formal reality, and an idea with the minimum. Ideas, with the lowest degree of formal reality, have the ability to have the highest degree in objective reality, which is the formal reality that the thought-about-thing would have if it were real. The distinction between formal and objective reality plays a key role in proving the existence of God, in that it argues, as previously stated, that something that exists in the mind can only be brought upon by something that exists in reality. By the relation of cause and effect, a thing, like God, must formally exist in order to cause another thing to exist, like humans. It is impossible to get something out of nothing. Descartes further explains his proof of the existence of God, when he says “…it is obvious that there must be at least as much in the cause as in the effect” (Modern Philosophy, p. 53, column 1). The effect, when the effect is an idea, can only be caused by something that has formally at least as much reality as it has objectively. This assumption is ambiguous, as the proof of God’s existence almost mirrors the proof of human’s existence, but it gains strength from its support from the ontological argument. This reality principle negates the perception that humans invented
the idea of God, because humans, though formally real, are finite beings, and therefore do not hold as many degrees in formal reality. An infinite thing (with more degrees of formal reality) is the only thing capable of budding the existence of humans. This assumption plays a role in Descartes argument for the existence of God when he explores the idea that humans have been marked by their maker when he writes:
…[T]he idea of substance in me by virtue of the fact that I am a substance, that fact is not sufficient to explain my having the idea of an infinite substance, since I am finite, unless this idea proceeded from some substance which really was infinite (Modern Philosophy p.51 column2).
Descartes recognition of his mind proves that he exists, but he also recognizes his imperfections and mortality. He is able to imagine a perfect creator, and realizes that as a creator, he would have created himself to be perfect. Since he is flawed, he cannot be the creator. His faults separate him from the perfection of a creator, and if Descartes did not design himself, then who did? God (Modern Philosophy pg. 52 column 2).
Descartes believes that humans did not create the idea of God, but that the idea was a native characteristic of thinkers. God is not something that could come from sensory experiences. He supports this argument with the concept of perfection, as humans are not capable of this concept, and still understand it. People, being so fallibly human, cannot perform ultimate perfection in any case, yet the idea of perfection is not astonishing. That idea must have come from God. The cause of the idea must have at least as much formal reality as the effect has objectively. The mere fact of existence, and the mere idea of a most perfect being “demonstrates most evidently that God too exists (Modern Philosophy p.53 column 2). Though humans are faulty, they understand perfection, because the “potential for these perfections” is born with them (Modern Philosophy p. 52 column 1). Instead of teaching people about the existence of God, teachers simply bring people to notice the innate idea within them. The most controversial points of Descartes’ argument is the Cartesian Circle that he has created, namely the dependence that his philosophical principles have on each other.
The truth rule supports God as no deceiver, the causal principle supports the truth rule, and God as no deceiver supports the causal principle. In easier terms, clear and distinct perceptions (or the truth rule) rely on God for their proof, and God relies on the truth rule for his existence. Descartes defends his arguments and diminishes the circle by basing the reality principle on a conceptual truth; that nothing comes from nothing. This separates the reality principle from the Truth Rule, effectively solving the Cartesian Circle. This solution weakens the Reality Principle, which depended on the existence of God who is no
deceiver. There are plenty of objections and later philosophies on the issue of the existence of God and I believe that Descartes ineffectively proved the ontological argument because of circular reasoning and arguable assumptions. Without his questioning and doubting though, modern philosophy would not have opened and the evolution of thought would be less developed. His assumptions may be too vague, and his Cartesian Circle may be too controversial, but his method of doubt is a brave and humbling exercise that began a new philosophy.