Rene Descartes Argument

1137 Words 5 Pages
Rene Descartes the father of modern philosophy, a philosopher known to believe things to be true until it was proven otherwise. In these meditations Descartes had complex opinions. In the case of Descartes in meditations a greater individual than him existed. Descartes’ claim insisted with the existence of the idea of God to the real existence of God. To support his argumentative opinions, Descartes points two distinct arguments that were utilized by “Augustine in the fourth century and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century” (Shouler). They consisted in the casual and ontological argument. The casual argument was introduced by Descartes in the third meditation. Descartes begun with the argument of a perfect being; this being was the …show more content…
These arguments by Descartes were intended to proof God’s existence; nonetheless, the two arguments had weaknesses. An example, in the first argument a person can deny having a perfect idea that is caused by God and therefore not acknowledge the existence of God. With this line of argumentative points, Descartes arguments do not hold meaning and as a consequence the conclusion cannot follow. Second argument is also weak in the sense that Descartes believes that God is perfect and is not a deceiver. How is it then that the imperfect is a deceiver? A perfect deceiver cannot lead one into deceit or error. As a result, if God truly existed, human beings would not be imperfect. Descartes’s arguments contradict one another and thus the clear picture being unclear. During the argument much contradiction transpires as Descartes argues that God is not a deceiver therefore human beings are perfect and at the same time argue that human beings are imperfect and thus their existence is uncertain. Descartes’s arguments are related, and there is no significant difference. The differences takes place minutes as the later argument highlights the issues deliberated in the first discussion. The first argument offers a stronger sense and it is more substantial than the …show more content…
I believe that the points that Descartes is arguing on his meditations that human beings are imperfect is not convincing. Descartes claims that God is not a deceiver and at the same time controller of human minds. The question that comes to me personally is how come human beings are imperfect yet a perfect being controlling their brain is not capable of deceit? This contradiction makes it difficult to come into a substantial conclusion, this is because it is not very clear whether God is not perfect or is he the controller of human’s mind. If he is, then human beings are perfect; otherwise God is imperfect and therefore cannot exist. In conclusion, some arguments by Descartes are not strong enough; making them weak. The arguments help to show that god exists. We often wonder as to why there are numerous supernatural events in the life of a human being and you find yourself asking who is responsible for such things. There has to be a being more powerful and greater than a human being that is responsible for those supernatural occurrences. Descartes argument points the idea that certainly God exists and that is more comforting than the prior uncertain opinions reached by

Related Documents