From this assumption, Descartes jumps to the conclusion that God does indeed exist; however, can this be considered as legitimate reasoning and be accepted as proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Must everything that Descartes perceives be true as long as it is clear and distinct?
Rather, he believes that this perception of God is prior to his own perception, and it could only actually arise from a perfect being. Thus Descartes concludes the only remaining option to be that this perception was innate in him.
Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes’ theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God? Does God exist?
In the ” Meditation Five,” Descartes attempts to prove his hypothesis of the existence of God based on the theory of clarity and distinctness of perception. He begins this theory by mentioning that ideas of certain things which are outside of him have their own truth and natures.
According to Descartes, God's existence is established by the fact that Descartes has a clear and distinct idea of God; but the truth of Descartes's clear and distinct ideas are guaranteed by the fact that God exists and is not a deceiver. Thus, in order to show that God exists, Descartes must assume that God exists.
In order to do this, Descartes posits he must make an argument that avoids critics' accusations that the proof relies on circular reasoning. In proving the existence of God from a philosophical level, he would be able to appeal to non-believers as well.
For Descartes, thinking is an attribute of mind, extension is an attribute of body, and God's attributes include absolute infinitude, necessary existence, immutability, eternality, omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.
In the 3rd Meditation, Descartes attempts to prove that God (i) exists, (ii) is the cause of the essence of the meditator (i.e. the author of his nature as a thinking thing), and (iii) the cause of the meditator's existence (both as creator and conserver, i.e. the cause that keeps him in existence from one moment to ...
Descartes was also a rationalist and believed in the power of innate ideas. Descartes argued the theory of innate knowledge and that all humans were born with knowledge through the higher power of God. It was this theory of innate knowledge that was later combated by philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), an empiricist.
How effective does Descartes expect his proofs for God's existence to be? They should convince anyone rational who is able to understand them. What other kinds of objects could we prove exist using the reasoning Descartes gives for God's existence in Meditation 5? It only works for this one idea.
There is certainly no shortage of arguments that purport to establish God's existence, but 'Arguments for the existence of God' focuses on three of the most influential arguments: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the argument from religious experience.
First he decides he can be certain that he exists, because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind to do the doubting. He does not yet accept that he is a thinking mind inside a body. After all, the demon could have convinced him that his body and the physical world exist.
Descartes’ hypothesis on his theory starts with the idea of a God who is eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and perfect. In his earlier Meditations, he claims that God may be a deceiver; he, however, concludes later that God is a non-deceiver because an act of deceit would be an attribute of moral imperfection.
For centuries, the idea of God has been a part of humanity’s history. Past and present, there has always been a different integration consisting of the believers and the non-believers of God. The group of those who have “faith” in God tends to be related to one religion or another.
The reasoning behind the justifications made by Descartes is related to “free will.”. Descartes states that the faculty of judgment is not infinite in human beings; human error is not dependent upon God but is rather a mere defect. On the other hand, free will is a freedom to choose which is infinite.
The first argument comes from the theory of design; there are orders in the universe that can’t be occurring by mere chance. Secondly, the existence of God explains the arguments regarding efficient causality; as the world exhibits orderly causal sequences, ...
On the other hand, free will is a freedom to choose which is infinite. Furthermore, he implies that the fact that the boundaries of will extending further than the finite intellect is the very source of human error. From this discussion, it is clear that humans do have the capacity to err.