In this paper, I intend to argue that Descartes’ argument for the existence of God in his Fifth Meditation from his Meditations on First Philosophy is indeed fallible. Descartes begins his argument by discussing the abstract concept of a triangle; even though a triangle may not exist outside of his idea of the shape in his head, it is clear that triangles have absolute definitions. For example, the measures of a triangle’s three angles always add up to the sum of two right angles. A triangle has an essence defined by its attributes, and this cannot be called “nothing” (44-45). He continues, saying that whatever he clearly and distinctly observes to belong to a concept must truly belong to that concept, and then applies this conjecture to his concept of God. Descartes declares that in his idea of an infinitely perfect God, he clearly and distinctly perceives existence as one of God’s perfections. He concludes that existence is inseparable from God, because he cannot imagine God, who is supremely perfect in all respects, including existence, as not existing. (46). Descartes defends his stance with his previous proof of the truths of things which he clearly and distinctly perceives, and by insisting that this is one of those instances. This argument, as clever as it may be, is not sufficient proof for the existence of God.
I agree with Descartes that one is able to perceive the true attributes of a true concept. Triangles are founded in mathematics, and what more is mathematics than a logical description of the quantities and spaces found in our universe. The space and matter which we encounter truly exist; there are many philosophical approaches to proving this and it is not necessary for me to reiterate such proofs. Since mathematics is our exacting definition of physical space and matter, it must also be true. Therefore, it is quite easy to find infallible truths in mathematical concepts. However, God is not a mathematical concept. The concept of God is not comparable to the concept of a shape, because the concept of God is not founded on a concrete truth. The attributes of a triangle are universally true, while the attributes of a supreme being vary from religion to religion and from philosopher to philosopher. One cannot merely analyze one’s own idea of a supreme being, and claim that it is true, except in the way that a religious person claims his beliefs are true because he believes in them.
In Descartes’ logic, he cannot imagine a God who is perfect but at the same time doesn’t exist. In other words, a perfect God must exist to be perfect. If a supremely perfect God does exist, then his existence could surely be qualified as a perfect attribute, but if a supremely perfect God does not exist in the first place, then his perfect attributes are entirely irrelevant. According to Descartes, God is perfect, and therefore must exist, and since he must exist, he must be perfect, and since he must be perfect he must exist, et cetera ad infinitum. It is apparent that he is caught in a logical loop, and has forced his concept of the perfect God into a belief in this perfect God’s existence. In truth, the question of God’s existence is unaffected by the fact that Descartes imagines a perfect God that must exist in order to be perfect. I can imagine that there is no God, and that infinite perfection does not exist. In fact, I can clearly and distinctly perceive that it is quite possible that God is no more than a human creation to explain the unexplainable. When it is both clear and distinct, our imagination is a great source for ideas, but a less reliable source for beliefs.
This leads to another flaw in Descartes’ argument. Descartes would surely use “clear and distinct perception” in a response to my objections, but his “clear and distinct perception” is still prone to human error. This does not necessarily mean that all aspects of human intellect are now fallible. Math adheres to rules that have been agreed upon and perfected by humans over centuries, and using my definition mentioned above, anyone can see that math can be trusted. However, the idea of a supreme being, or infinite substance, can not be clearly perceived by anyone. Simply because one can conjure up an idea of a supreme creator in no way permits one to claim that it is clearly perceived enough to be true. Nor is it permissible to claim that the idea of God had to originate from the true God, as Descartes argued in a previous meditation. All of the attributes that Descartes finds in his infinitely perfect being are human attributes exaggerated to the point of uncertainty. Knowledge, power, creation, existence, and any other aspects of God may also be applied to humans. Thus it is fair to say that the idea of a God could have originated in imagining a better human, a sort of super-human. The human mind is just as capable of creation as the human hand. We take what already exists, and change or build upon it. Just because we are unsure of our purpose or origin, does not mean that we must create a possible source in our minds, and pledge our allegiance to it (God). It is perfectly fine to ponder these unanswerable questions, and come up with many logical and possible explanations, but to assert that you have found the one true source by exploring your own intellect is like saying you have found gold by simply laying in your bed.

WRONG!

wall of text = tldr

Read Kant's refutation of Decartes...can definately help :mrgreen:


here is a hint:  Just because you have an idea of God, does not make it necessary that He does in fact exist.

You can have an idea of a perfect and omnipotent being such as God, without it being a fact of his existence.
In other words, when giving the definition of God, as Decartes does, it is fallacious to say that He exists and is perfect, as it is not a necessary definite factor in the Definition of God, that he does in fact exist.

did you just say phallus? :P

God makes 4 sided triangles all the time.

p.s. Don't study french philosophers, german ones are better. Frege fucking owns you.

ya im reading Hume now, hes a lot better than Noobcartes.

bah you nub skib! Hume is lame.

K  A    N  T :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Skib v. Queso Burrito = I win.

PS. Were you working by chance last Saturday night?

I make burritos, therefore i am

 
qfe :mrgreen:

NO

QFT

STFU