In Meditation III of Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes sets the stage for proving the existence of God. While he begins with the fact that he is a “thing that thinks” with an ability to sense, imagine, doubt, and understand the world around him, Descartes confirms that these ideas exist within him. Since he is certain that he exists and thinks and that he “clearly and distinctly perceives” things, he then concludes that whatever he perceives clearly and distinctly is true. However, he claims that he can only be certain that what he perceives clearly and distinctly is true if he can prove that God is not deceiving him in some way. Therefore, all of his clear and distinct perceptions ultimately come from God.
Descartes proves that …show more content…
Accepting Descartes claim as true, we can then say that since the idea of God has infinite objective reality, then this idea could not have come from Descartes and must have come from God himself. Therefore, God exists.
Now that we have outlined the premises of Descartes argument in the Third Meditation, we can construct his proof as follows:
A) I have a clear and distinct perception of God in which God has infinite objective reality.
B) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
C) The idea of God must have been caused by God himself, and the clear and distinct perceptions of God are true. Therefore, God …show more content…
Here is where Descartes argument is futile because he is trying to prove that his clear and distinct perception of God is true, but he has already accepted its truth in premise I. In the argument’s reasoning, Descartes shows that we can only know that God exists if our perceptions are true, but our perceptions are only true if God exists. This contradiction in reasoning makes his entire argument pointless.
To expand on the inconsistency of Descartes argument, we can compare it to this example argument (in which we try to prove that a goldfish is healthy and well):
Premise 1: I have a clear and distinct perception of a goldfish that is healthy and well.
Premise 2: In order for this goldfish to be healthy and well, it must live in a fish tank.
Conclusion: Therefore, this goldfish that I have a perception of lives in a fish tank and is healthy and
Descartes proves that …show more content…
Accepting Descartes claim as true, we can then say that since the idea of God has infinite objective reality, then this idea could not have come from Descartes and must have come from God himself. Therefore, God exists.
Now that we have outlined the premises of Descartes argument in the Third Meditation, we can construct his proof as follows:
A) I have a clear and distinct perception of God in which God has infinite objective reality.
B) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
C) The idea of God must have been caused by God himself, and the clear and distinct perceptions of God are true. Therefore, God …show more content…
Here is where Descartes argument is futile because he is trying to prove that his clear and distinct perception of God is true, but he has already accepted its truth in premise I. In the argument’s reasoning, Descartes shows that we can only know that God exists if our perceptions are true, but our perceptions are only true if God exists. This contradiction in reasoning makes his entire argument pointless.
To expand on the inconsistency of Descartes argument, we can compare it to this example argument (in which we try to prove that a goldfish is healthy and well):
Premise 1: I have a clear and distinct perception of a goldfish that is healthy and well.
Premise 2: In order for this goldfish to be healthy and well, it must live in a fish tank.
Conclusion: Therefore, this goldfish that I have a perception of lives in a fish tank and is healthy and