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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
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 …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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