[Essay] Descartes' Proof for God

[devonin]

The philosophy threads just keep on rollin'

In René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes considers what he can be sure to be true. His meditations cover a large variety of areas: the senses, the nature of the mind and body, the essence and existence of material things; But of all of these topics, one of his most fascinating and thought-provoking meditations is that on the existence of God. His argument is fairly well stated, but it is not flawless in its logic and reasoning. Through analysis and explanation of his position, this paper will set out his belief on the existence of God, the importance of this argument to his overall position, and to discuss several of the problems in his reasoning.

The first point at which Descartes considers God is the in the third meditation. By this point, Descartes has already concluded that the only thing thus far that he can be sure of is that he exists as some sort of thinking thing. He has considered the existence of a malevolent spirit that has set out specifically to deceive him at every turn, which has the effect of rendering any other belief spurious at best. In the face of the possibility that something is deliberately setting out to deceive him, he is left only with the knowledge that he is a thinking thing. From there, we get into the third meditation, wherein Descartes considers the possibility of the existence of God, and what precisely that would entail.

Descartes starts by pointing out that in order for any effect to occur, its cause must be in possession of the effect itself or at least an equal amount of ‘reality’. From this he concludes that “It follows from this both that something cannot arise from nothing, and
also that what is more perfect – that is, contains in itself more reality – cannot arise from what is less perfect.” (Abel 186) His example here is that a rock cannot be created by anything that does not contain within it all of the characteristics of a rock, or come from a higher level of reality as one. Likewise, heat cannot be created by something that was not itself hot, or possessed of a comparable level of reality.

Having decided upon that, Descartes then considers what comes to mind when he thinks of ‘god.’ His impression of God is of “a substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else (if anything else there be) that exists.” (Abel 187) Realising that any thought he has must have occurred either within him, or was put there by an outside force. According to his own logic, in order for the idea of something, for example, omnipotence, to occur from within himself, he must himself be in possession of omnipotence. Since he isn’t, he can only conclude that the thought originated from somewhere that –was- in possession of omnipotence…God.

After having now concluded that God exists, Descartes ponders how it is that the idea of God came to be in his mind. He decides that since he cannot add anything to, or take anything away from the concept of a perfect being with no defects, than the idea is clearly not one that arrived to him through some sort of sensory input, instead it must be innate within him, in the way that he is created. And since the only being capable of instilling this innate knowledge of a perfect being with no defects within him is a being
possessed of perfection with no defects, only God is capable of such a creation, ergo, God must exist.

This argument is central to Descartes’ position. His prime worry at the start of his meditations is that he could be under the depredations of a malevolent demon setting out to deceive him at every turn. By being able to prove in his own mind that there exists a God without defect, who has created him at least somewhat in His own image, and that said God is not a deceiver, Descartes is able to move forward in his quest to find knowledge that is without doubt. Were he unable to prove a perfect God, he would not be able to continue, since there would be no way to believe anything else whatsoever.

The way Descartes goes about proving the existence of God is very similar to the proof of St Anselm, in that he deduces the existence of God from nothing but internal logic. The failing in that sort of proof is, obviously enough, that you can fall prey to faulty logic. His first assertion with regard to the necessity of any result having all of its characteristics within its cause seems rather silly on the surface. After all, if the qualities of something must be contained within its creator, how is it that humans can make devices that can fly, or are transparent, neither of which is a characteristic contained within humans? He covers for this by claiming that as an alternative, the cause can also come from “something of the same order (degree or kind) of perfection.” (Abel 186) This only holds up while talking about the relationship between man and God. If one equates, say rock-ness and heat-ness as the same order of perfection, (which is implied by
Descartes’ arguments) then heat should be able to create rocks, and vice-versa, which they clearly cannot.

But given that Descartes needs to establish that it is impossible for something to be created by something of lesser perfection that still does not address his claiming the same for the ideas of things. While other proofs for God’s existence hinge on the idea that if you can conceive of a being of which there is no greater, than simply by assuming that to exist in fact is better than to exist as an idea, you must attribute existence to such a perfect being, Descartes instead concludes that since he can conceive of a being with characteristics that he does not himself posses, than the –idea- cannot have occurred originally within him. This is an unnecessary step in his proof, and had he followed the lead of Anselm, this blip of logic would have been avoided.

The other fault of this sort of argument is that it really isn’t based on anything remotely confirmable. Descartes states that it is impossible for a thought to occur originally within him about something possessing characteristics with ‘more’ reality than he himself possesses. However, on what is he basing that fact? He starts off that claim with “Now it is manifest by the natural light [of reason]” (Abel 186) But just what does that mean, ‘manifest’? Apparently it should be obvious to anybody that what he is saying is true, but there is no actual proof to his claim. I can conceive of things that fly, and things that are freezing cold, and things that can move through cracks under doors if I want to, while I possess none of those characteristics myself. Descartes would have me
believe that this is because I have an equal or greater amount of ‘reality’ than those things do, but one could just as easily conclude that it is because sharing characteristics has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to hold an idea. Simply not being infinitely powerful, or knowledgeable doesn’t render you unable to conceive of something that is.

Descartes, for someone who starts off by claiming that he is easily deceived, presents a very well thought out argument for the existence of God. For what he claims, he supports those claims quite well. While the ideas put forward by Descartes require you to believe on faith what he says, which runs directly contrary to his own claims about being completely certain before believing anything, one could claim that he intends his conclusions only for himself, and that we are under no obligation to agree with him.
Through the course of the meditations, Descartes deals with the foundation of knowledge in many forms. But it is through his thoughts on God that his philosophy truly receives a chance to shine. In spite of a few flaws inherent in his reasoning, Descartes presents a compelling proof for belief in a superior creator being, of the calibre to insist upon sober reflection and thought in all who read it.

[MeaCulpa]

His Meditations were well written, but they're flawed logically. Most significantly, this argument for God's existence and benevolence is circular.

The Cartesian Circle, briefly: the premises he uses to prove God's existence can be doubted until God is proven to exist (and is not a deceiver). This circular logic puts some of his premises into doubt, which results in an unsound argument.

Since this argument fails, then his subsequent arguments are unsound, as they rely on God existing and not deceiving us.

[Kilroy_x]

God is pretty much the equivalent of the ether; an excessively complicated, unnecessary mechanic invented out of ignorance. Funny how Descartes liked both concepts. One of the common problems among smart people is they're too good at coming up with explanations and too eager to do so.

According to his own logic, in order for the idea of something, for example, omnipotence, to occur from within himself, he must himself be in possession of omnipotence.

What? Apparently this argument was made before the invention of quotation marks?

His example here is that a rock cannot be created by anything that does not contain within it all of the characteristics of a rock, or come from a higher level of reality as one. Likewise, heat cannot be created by something that was not itself hot, or possessed of a comparable level of reality.

What? Rock-ness can generate heat-ness in a sense, and vice versa. Certain types of rocks come into existence only under extreme heat. Also, if enough physical material gathered in one place it could overcome the force of repulsion and generate rather tremendous amounts of heat. Metaphysically, everything seems to possess "the same level of reality". Any sense to be found in this area of Descartes thinking could only be incidental.

You already covered both of these, to an extent. What I'm really confused about is how your conclusion follows from the rest of the paper. It doesn't seem to do so at all.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

What? Apparently this argument was made before the invention of quotation marks?

I'm afraid I missed something with this? I'm referring to his belief that something can only create/comphrehend something else if it shares the characteristics of that thing, or possesses a greater amount of reality than that thing. As such, something that is omnipotent, or rather the concept of omnipotence must have, according to his logic, originated from something that was omnipotent, or possessed the same or greater amount of reality than omnipotent things.

What? Rock-ness can generate heat-ness in a sense, and vice versa. Certain types of rocks come into existence only under extreme heat. Also, if enough physical material gathered in one place it could overcome the strong nuclear force and generate rather tremendous amounts of heat. Metaphysically, everything seems to possess "the same level of reality". Any sense to be found in this area of Descartes thinking could only be incidental.

His logic about how things need to possess "more reality" than other things in order to create/comprehend them seemed silly to me, so I chose an absurd comparison to highlight that. His "Or possess more reality" seemed like a convenient way to cover "Humans can't fly, but we can create flying things, so clearly 'possessing the qualities' of something isn't strictly necessary." as an objection.

Since heat and rocks do not share the same qualities, if they do share a roughly equal level of reality, you could assume from Descartes statements that he would accept the idea that heat can make rocks in a direct creation sense. I mean, I'll gladly cop to straw manning him a little bit there, but I was still pretty new to philosophy at that point.

What I'm really confused about is how your conclusion follows from the rest of the paper. It doesn't seem to do so at all.

Well...even though I pointed out more than a few issues I have with his reasoning, I still found his logic compelling, even if just as a process independant of the content, so I concluded that in spite of the flaws, it is something that is plenty compelling enough to make you want to sit and think on it.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm afraid I missed something with this? I'm referring to his belief that something can only create/comphrehend something else if it shares the characteristics of that thing, or possesses a greater amount of reality than that thing. As such, something that is omnipotent, or rather the concept of omnipotence must have, according to his logic, originated from something that was omnipotent, or possessed the same or greater amount of reality than omnipotent things.

Yes, and the problem is one solved by the most basic formal semantics. Omnipotence implies omnipotence. That's a basic, unfalsifiable proposition. However, "omnipotence" implies omnipotence is not.

Consider for example two propositions. Gold is yellow, and "gold" is yellow. The quotation marks denote the word itself. While gold is yellow, the word "gold" is most certainly not yellow.

Well...even though I pointed out more than a few issues I have with his reasoning, I still found his logic compelling, even if just as a process independant of the content, so I concluded that in spite of the flaws, it is something that is plenty compelling enough to make you want to sit and think on it.

A lot of things are compelling enough to think about it. Are we discussing whether the analysis of false ideas can create value or whether the ideas themselves are true or false?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yes, and the problem is one solved by the most basic formal semantics. Omnipotence implies omnipotence. That's a basic, unfalsifiable proposition. However, "omnipotence" implies omnipotence is not.

Consider for example two propositions. Gold is yellow, and "gold" is yellow. The quotation marks denote the word itself. While gold is yellow, the word "gold" is most certainly not yellow.

I'm dense today, I'm still missing what you're driving at here. Descartes says "I can think of the concept of being all powerful, which I call 'omnipotence.' Since I don't possess the quality of being all-powerful, and do not consider myself to possess an equal reality to things which are all powerful, the concept of being all-powerful coudln't have originated with me, it must have originated with something that -did- possess the quality of being all powerful"

A lot of things are compelling enough to think about it. Are we discussing whether the analysis of false ideas can create value or whether the ideas themselves are true or false?

Well, when I posted the text, I was figuring on a discussion of what Descartes was saying, pointing out some of the good and bad in his logic, rather than a meta-discussion about whether logic we find faulty (for those of us that find it faulty) can still impart a positive result from its analysis.

But as I enjoy discussion as much for the sake of discussion as I do for the content of the discussion, and I enjoy discussions with you on virtually any subject, we can go in whichever direction the flow takes us, I suppose.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm dense today, I'm still missing what you're driving at here.

Knowledge of an object doesn't imply existence of an object. Just look at Schizophrenia.

Well, when I posted the text, I was figuring on a discussion of what Descartes was saying, pointing out some of the good and bad in his logic, rather than a meta-discussion about whether logic we find faulty (for those of us that find it faulty) can still impart a positive result from its analysis.

The "meta-discussion" is critical, because the premise to the discussion you wanted rests on whether or not faulty logic can still be useful. I think it can be very useful to examine faulty logic. However, faulty logic isn't useful as far as I can tell.

Going back to what I said earlier, any level of correctness in Descartes reasoning is incidental. There are plenty of instances in which the reasoning he used doesn't hold, so we already know the rule he used doesn't work, period. He needed it to be valid in all cases to make the inference he did, not just some, but since there are instances when it is not valid he can't actually use it to prove anything.

Let's look at a similar instance of partial or accidental correctness.

1. Whenever we offer fish to the God of the harvest, we receive bountiful harvests (PR)
2. Only a pleased entity helps others (PR)
3. A bountiful harvest is desirable (PR)
4. We please the God of the harvest by offering him fish (1,2)
5. Therefore, we should always offer the God of the harvest fish. (1,2,3,4)

Sure, this sort of assumes that the God of harvest exists. Or rather, it assumes to prove the existence of the God by way of 2. So 2 is a faulty premise, not necessarily because unpleased entities might help people, but because it is possible for people to be helped by circumstances rather than entities. So 2 is an example of a classic animistic fallacy.

More importantly though, 2 assumes universality where it cannot. Perhaps we revise it to "pleased entities help others". Well in this case, all we have to do is show an instance of literally anything else helping others, and we can doubt that this particular instance of people being helped resulted from the pleasing of an entity.

Of course, 2 is also an unnecessary premise, but then again so is the concept of a God at all.

[devonin]

Well, in that particular case, I'd more more curious as to whether premise 1 has a 100% success rate. If -every- time they offer fish to the God of the harvest, they get a bountiful harvest, and every time they don't, they get a drought, and that has been going on for say...centuries, I'd actually be rather inclined to consider the possibility that the rest of the premises are true.

[Kilroy_x]

Well, they offer fish to the God of the harvest by placing them on the crops throughout the fields. With your modern mind you should be able to recognize the significance of that.

[devonin]

Okay, so now that you've discussed method, the obvious correlation becomes clear. But that distinction was lacking in the original presentation. They could just have easily burnt them on an altar.

So now that you've displayed another instance of logic similar to Descartes' we get back to the original meta-question: Is there still any value to analysing the flow of this particular arguement, and considering the potential significance of the portions of it that are valid, whether purposeful or incidental?

[Kilroy_x]

No portions are valid. The argument doesn't distinguish for individual cases. It doesn't make any more sense to say that there are valid parts of that argument than it would to say that there are valid parts of the argument: "All black people are in prison". Yes, some black people are in prison. That isn't the argument.

Additionally, Descartes argument requires his premises hold in all cases in order to prove the existence of God, so even if you did rephrase the first part of it to be valid, the conclusion would then not follow from the premises .

[devonin]

Yes Ted. That's the joke.

IE. Yes, we've already got to the part where we've decided the argument isn't valid. I thought we were supposed to be talking about whether, in spite of the argument being invalid, there was still any value to be gained by analyzing the argument.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Is there still any value to analysing the flow of this particular arguement, and considering the potential significance of the portions of it that are valid, whether purposeful or incidental?

?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The "meta-discussion" is critical, because the premise to the discussion you wanted rests on whether or not faulty logic can still be useful. I think it can be very useful to examine faulty logic. However, faulty logic isn't useful as far as I can tell.

There you go.