Descartes: The Special Causal Principle and the Existence of God
In the 3rd Meditation, Descartes concludes that the he is a thinking thing and continues by determining whether there is anything that exist outside of him. Descartes then provides an argument which aim is to determine whether God exist, and this is presented as an argument for the existence of God based on an idea. In this, the Special Causal Principle arises and well as the concept of “clear and distinct ideas”. The aim of this paper is to ascertain whether the argument makes use of the two principles by critically evaluating the argument based on the idea of God.
To summarize René Descartes’s presentation of the argument for the existence of God based on an idea: first, an effect cannot be more real than its cause, thus, it must have as much reality as the cause, and this is particularly important to determine whether something does exist (for something to exist, it needs to be caused by something that also exists). He then proceeds to determine that due to the latter, the idea of God contains infinite objective reality, and the cause of this idea must be infinite. Essentially, this argument could be interpreted by the premise suggesting that, if God does exist, then this concept of God must contain more objective reality than formal reality: this insinuates that there is a more significant amount of ideas which are derived from the mental world, than the images of things we observe in the real world when it comes to the concept of God’s existence. With this in my mind, Descartes’s theory proposing that an idea cannot come from nothing, follows the latter because this very principle could not arise from anything if it did not truly exist according to Descartes. Thus, God necessarily exist. Also, the argument which states that God is an infinite being, insinuates that the idea of His existence could not be created in the mind of a finite being, since God only is in power of creating this idea, in this case, the idea of his existence. Descartes also indicates that by the mere thought of acquiring the idea of God’s exist, implies that God must exist. And finally, finite: meaning one does not possess an infinite amount of formal reality, and the latter would be attributed to God, thus he is an infinite entity. As having been brought up by Christians and was taught Christian values, the author’s argument could not easily be refuted and certainly, Descartes’s doctrine could be valid according to one who has grown up in a monotheism religious environment, believing that God necessarily exits, on the other hand, someone who thinks critically could possibly disagree and for the sake of evaluating this argument, it is plausible that the premise implying that what is great must have been created by something that is at least just as great, if not more, is wrong. Descartes clearly suggests that this great creation could not have been created by a simple element, since an effect cannot be more real than its cause, and thus God must have been the creator. And in general, this rule should apply to other concepts as well. However, this argument is not valid because a simple thing could have created a complex element, for example, biological phenomenon’s which can create living beings. Descartes mentions …show more content…
The evaluation of the Special Causal Principle and the clear and distinct ideas principle, in accordance to Descartes’s main argument has demonstrated that the author does not, in many instances, make use of both principles. Descartes’s argument is plausible but the lack of substantial evidence supporting his argument. By the critical evaluations of the two doctrines present in this paper, the lack of evidence is clear: first, Descartes does not make use of the Special Causal Principle, specifically in relation to God being a perfect being, and having the same properties as what He’s created. Second, it is not valid to determine whether God truly exists, despite Him being an incomprehensible entity according to Descartes, thus, one cannot conclude that something exist based off of the sole fact they are clearly and distinctly perceived in the mind. There is no plausible explanation as to why something must necessarily exist if they exist in the
In the 3rd Meditation, Descartes concludes that the he is a thinking thing and continues by determining whether there is anything that exist outside of him. Descartes then provides an argument which aim is to determine whether God exist, and this is presented as an argument for the existence of God based on an idea. In this, the Special Causal Principle arises and well as the concept of “clear and distinct ideas”. The aim of this paper is to ascertain whether the argument makes use of the two principles by critically evaluating the argument based on the idea of God.
To summarize René Descartes’s presentation of the argument for the existence of God based on an idea: first, an effect cannot be more real than its cause, thus, it must have as much reality as the cause, and this is particularly important to determine whether something does exist (for something to exist, it needs to be caused by something that also exists). He then proceeds to determine that due to the latter, the idea of God contains infinite objective reality, and the cause of this idea must be infinite. Essentially, this argument could be interpreted by the premise suggesting that, if God does exist, then this concept of God must contain more objective reality than formal reality: this insinuates that there is a more significant amount of ideas which are derived from the mental world, than the images of things we observe in the real world when it comes to the concept of God’s existence. With this in my mind, Descartes’s theory proposing that an idea cannot come from nothing, follows the latter because this very principle could not arise from anything if it did not truly exist according to Descartes. Thus, God necessarily exist. Also, the argument which states that God is an infinite being, insinuates that the idea of His existence could not be created in the mind of a finite being, since God only is in power of creating this idea, in this case, the idea of his existence. Descartes also indicates that by the mere thought of acquiring the idea of God’s exist, implies that God must exist. And finally, finite: meaning one does not possess an infinite amount of formal reality, and the latter would be attributed to God, thus he is an infinite entity. As having been brought up by Christians and was taught Christian values, the author’s argument could not easily be refuted and certainly, Descartes’s doctrine could be valid according to one who has grown up in a monotheism religious environment, believing that God necessarily exits, on the other hand, someone who thinks critically could possibly disagree and for the sake of evaluating this argument, it is plausible that the premise implying that what is great must have been created by something that is at least just as great, if not more, is wrong. Descartes clearly suggests that this great creation could not have been created by a simple element, since an effect cannot be more real than its cause, and thus God must have been the creator. And in general, this rule should apply to other concepts as well. However, this argument is not valid because a simple thing could have created a complex element, for example, biological phenomenon’s which can create living beings. Descartes mentions …show more content…
The evaluation of the Special Causal Principle and the clear and distinct ideas principle, in accordance to Descartes’s main argument has demonstrated that the author does not, in many instances, make use of both principles. Descartes’s argument is plausible but the lack of substantial evidence supporting his argument. By the critical evaluations of the two doctrines present in this paper, the lack of evidence is clear: first, Descartes does not make use of the Special Causal Principle, specifically in relation to God being a perfect being, and having the same properties as what He’s created. Second, it is not valid to determine whether God truly exists, despite Him being an incomprehensible entity according to Descartes, thus, one cannot conclude that something exist based off of the sole fact they are clearly and distinctly perceived in the mind. There is no plausible explanation as to why something must necessarily exist if they exist in the