Descartes arguments for existence of God (Epistemology) Flashcards
State Descartes 3 arguments in his Meditation 111 for the argument of the existence of God.
- Trademark argument
- Cosmological argument
- Ontological argument
Explain (in premises and conclusions) Descartes Trademark argument.
P1 - I have the concept of God
P2 - The concept of God is a concept of something infinite + perfect
P3 - As a mind(thinking substance), I can create many ideas including those ideas of people and physical objects
P4- But I am finite, while the concept of God is Infinite
C1 - Therefore God is a concept of something with more reality than my own mind.
P5 - The cause of the concept of God must have as much reality as what the concept is
C2- Therefore my mind could not have created it.
P6- The only possible explanation is God.
C3- Therefore God exists.
Therefore basically by process of illimitation the idea of God must exists and is Innate o has to be placed in our minds by god. That leads to only possible conclusion which is that God exists.
Explain( in premises and conclusions) Descartes Cosmological argument.
P1 - If i could be the cause my own existence, would
have given myself all perfections (omnipotence
etc)
P2- I do not have all perfections
C1- Therefore i am not the cause of my own exitance.
P3- A lifespan is composed of independent parts,
existing at one time doesn’t guarantee existing
later.
P4- My existence isn’t uncaused.
C2- Therefore there must be something to keep me in
existence.
P5- I don’t have the power to cause my own
continuing existence
C3- Therefore i depend on something else to exist.
P6- I am a thinking thing and i have the idea of God.
P7- There must be as much reality in the cause as in
the effect.
C4- Therefore what causes my existence must be a
thinking thing + have the idea of God.
P8- Either what causes me is the cause of its own
existence or its existence is caused by another
cause.
P9 - If the cause is caused by another cause then the
point/sequence repeats.
P10- There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes
C5- Therefore, some cause must be the cause of its
own existence.
P11- What is the cause of its own existence is God
P12- Whatever causes its own existence must be the
cause of mine.
C6- Therefore God exists.
Explain the two Premises in Descartes Cosmological argument which we can deny/ challenge which undermine his argument.
P4 - My existence isn’t uncaused’
This could not be the cause and is key point in D argument, if there can be things that are uncaused then it undermines his whole argument and every point following it.
P10 - ‘There cannot be an infinite sequence of causes’
There’s no valid reasoning behind this point nor backing it up. Cant prove that there isn’t a constant and infinite sequence of causes. And if there is then our existence doesn’t have to be caused by God.
Explain the criticisms of Descartes Trademark argument.
1 )Empiricist response:
Empiricists would reject the argument as it claims the concept of God is Innate + Empiricism states mind is a posterior.Is the concept of God really Innate?
- Could argue traits like intelligence, perfection, goodness can all be acquired in our lives + we can relate these ideas of wisdom + perfection to create the idea of something that is perfection.
+ Hume would argue the way we create ideas is through combining different ones to form Complex onesWould claim we can use Induction, Reasoning + Rational Intuition to prove the existence of God.
Use Hume’s Fork to challenge (as Trademark argument fits into neither Relations of Ideas or Matter of Fact)
2) Reject Descartes ‘ Knowledge of Causes’
Everything doesn’t necessarily need a cause , there are always uncaused events and where cause isn’t equal to the effect . However this can be problematic as it leads to ‘Infinite regress’ ( no 1st cause) and we can reject the causal principle as we do not require a cause as great or greater than the effect in order to cause a large effect at all, this has been disapproved
Explain what the ‘Causal Principle’ is.
The causal principle states that;
“The cause of anything must be adequate to its effect”
If something occurs it must have enough power to produce its effect. eg for a widow to shatter it cant occur because a grain of sand was thrown at it, it would need something bigger and something sufficient. ( So cause always needs to be greater than the effect )
The Causal Principle helps to defend Descartes Trademark Argument as Descartes states that its impossible for him to invented idea of God because Gods infinite and we as humans are finite.
The causal principle would also assert this because Descartes is not a large enough ‘cause’ to produce an effect such as God who is a perfect being. Especially as we as humans are imperfect.
The ‘Cause’ of the idea of God must have AS MUCH or more logic than reality, therefore the only cause that’s sufficient to produce idea of infinite being is God + so God must exist for Descartes to have the idea in his mind.
Explain a criticism/ response from Empiricists to Descartes Cosmological argument.
Empiricists would argue;
We cannot know for certain that everything has a cause/ has to have a cause. It is very possible our exitance is ‘uncaused’
- We cannot out rule an infinite sequence of causes as impossible or paradoxical.
- What causes a ‘thinking being’ must be discovered through experience and so we cannot know it a priori.
- Could use Hume’s Fork to object about assumptions of causation.
Explain the criticisms of Descartes Ontological Argument
‘The Cartesian Circle’
Descartes uses ‘Clear + Distinctness’ to prove that God exists. However Descartes also uses the existence of God to prove Clear + Distinct knowledge (as we can only trust Clear and Distinctness because God would not deceive us because he’s perfect etc).
Therefore each side of argument is cilycal on the other. C+D is only true because of existence of God yet Descartes uses C+D to prove God exists in the first place.
Thus, the result can be hugely problematic
‘Gaunilo’ states that ‘ It becomes a problem when we state that existence HAS to be’ which is essentially exactly what Descartes does.
Perfect Island;
- I have the idea of a perfect island
a supremely perfect being doesn’t lack any perfection
Existance is a perfection
Therefore the island exists - yet it doesn’t.
Explain the basis/summary of what Descartes Trademark argument
Descartes tries to prove god exists just from the fact that we have a concept of god. This concept which he argues is innate is like a ‘trademark’ that our creator has stamped on our minds.
An idea can derive from something outside of my mind eg through sense perception;
- I can invent ideas
- Ideas can be innate
Where does the idea of God originate from? - God has imprinted on my mind as a trade mark.
The causal principles necessary for Descartes’ trademark argument to work because we can’t have a small cause and a big effect. Our ideas have to have at least as much reality as the ideas themselves, our ideas cannot be more perfect than what caused them. When Descartes considers how perfect the idea of God is, he concludes that it would have been impossible for this to have originated from him - and thus must originate from God. Thus God must exist.
Explain Descartes Ontological argument
Descartes begins arguing that clear + distinct ideas can be shown to be true (factual) and argues the existance of god is like the interior sides of an equilateral triangle, it must add up to 180 degrees its a pessary feature of the triangle + in doing so Descartes understands god is the same logically as the triangle - God must exist.
- I have the idea of God
- The idea of god is the idea if a supremely perfect being
- A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
- Existence is a perfection
- Therefore god exists.
