Assessment of Descartes' Claims About the Existence of God

Assessment of Descartes' Claims About the Existence of God
While reading Descartes book ?meditations on the first philosophy? I noticed some fatal flaws in his reasoning in his 3rd mediation, so I shall start from the start of this chapter and assess his reasoning?s as I read through the chapter. Descartes assesses that he is certain he is a thinking thing, as I think therefore I am is self-evident, he then tries to go on to see whatever else he can be certain about! He notices with ?I am a thinking thing? he has a ?clear and distinct perception of what he is asserting?, He then turns this around and states that things that he clearly and distinctly perceives are true, and if anything he could find to be false by using this method would make the method unreliable thus open to doubt but regardless of the latter consideration he continues to use it as a method for that ?whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctively is true.?
So it is already too late, he has employed it as a method almost immediately after noting that he could be open to error, now by using it as a method he will be unable to see any falsehoods that the method may accompany, thus he is open to accept dutiable beliefs as true. I would go on to criticize the method in detail, but he never actually releases details on syntax of the method. After making this mistake Descartes goes on to Asses whether he really should use this as a method of finding new truths, but he seems to continuing using this dutiable method of reasoning. He goes on to talk about ideas, he notices that his adventitious ideas do not seem to depend on his will, for frequently he notices them when he does not want to. But he has not excluded the idea that a part of his mind could want to notice these things (a subconscious part), whether his conscious part wants to or not! Thus these ideas could be his own, or innate. He also states that an infinite god has more objective reality in it than a finite being. Well this would be true, if god existed because we?d be limited in comparison to god because god is perfect and he contains infinite qualities, which makes infinite qualities perfect then infinite would be a higher/greater quality than finite, but Descartes has not proved god exists, and so cannot infer from gods existence that infinity is of greater perfection than the finite. Descartes claims ideas regress from one another till they reach absolute perfection, and Descartes suspects that if ideas are too perfect for him, then they must had originated from something more perfect that him. He uses these ideas to ?prove? the existence of god, Descartes states that god has various qualities he?s infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful and which created both myself and everything else, these ideas are so perfect he claims that the more he concentrates on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from him alone. He thus concludes god exists! Descartes is supposing that the idea of god necessarily comes because of the regression of ideas must go down to perfection and because God is perfection and perfection is God. Yet he has not proved god = perfection, it is possible that a different substance is perfect and exists which all ideas regressed from rather than god (for example a intelligent computer (matrix)/brains in jars probed by aliens/big bang etc?) for I do accept his regress argument that if I was just a mind all my ideas must have regressed from somewhere, and will eventually be found to have come from perfection, but I do not see how it follows that this perfection needs be god (to me this perfection is truth/good/namely everything). He then says ?I clearly understand that there is more reality in a infinite substance than a finite one?. that is god, is in some way prior to my perception of the finite, that is myself.? Here he uses the same reasoning as I criticized earlier he is assuming that the infinite is perfect and finite is a limitation of this, and because of this infinite comes before finite so god comes before him, this is his 2nd proof of god! He then bases his 3rd proof of god on the reasoning that all things he perceives to be clearly and distinctly true are in fact true! And he perceives god clearly and distinctly. And the trademark argument is shockingly bad, its just inferred from the 1st and 2nd ?proves? of god that because he has a idea of god which he believes to be innate (without giving reason why he concludes its innate) that is perfect it makes sense to Descartes that this idea is because it?s a trademark left by god to show people where they came from. But just because you can have a idea of god doesn?t prove he exists, just the idea. Most of Descartes ?proofs? about god?s existence seem to come from the idea that we only can have ideas about god if he exists, but the idea of god needn?t have come from god ? it could have come from within me, people could have based the idea of god on their own limited perfections and simply imagine degrees of perfection up to complete perfection which is god, so the idea could come completely from them. Descartes also backs up his argument about ideas saying they all regress from one particular source, because every effect has a cause more perfect and real than the effect, but he fails to explain why the cause most be more real than the effect?. And the biggest criticisms of all are; why must infinity be more perfect than the finite? Why must the cause be greater than the effect?

Assessment of Descartes' Claims About the Existence of God 8.8 of 10 on the basis of 2107 Review.