His arguments for the existence of God

Question 1

trademark argument

Answer 1

Descartes trademarked the argument for the existence of God.
P1 the cause of anything must be as perfect as its effect (causal adequacy principle) – there must be as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect.
P2 my idea must be caused by something.
P3 I am an imperfect being
P4 I have the idea of god which is that of a perfect being
Conc1 I cant be the cause of my idea of god from p1,2,3,4
Conc2 only a perfect being (that is god) can be the cause of my idea of god ( p1 and 4)
Conc3 god must exist (from p4 and conc2)

Question 2

causal adequacy principle

Answer 2

There must be as much reality in the cause as much as the effect.

Question 3

criticism: causal principle

Answer 3

Descartes believed it self-evidently true that the total cause of something must contain at least as much reality as does the effect. this causal principle may be true with regards to the physical world it is similar to the first law of thermodynamics but it is not clear how it would apply to the world of ideas. our minds can easily create better versions of real objects. indeed hume argued that our idea of god is derived from considering virtues in other people and augmenting them without limit.

Question 4

criticism: not a priori

Answer 4

Hume argued that we can never deduce the effect from examining the cause or the cause from examining the effect. we need experience of cause and effect conjoined before we can learn of their connection. so from knowing the effect the idea of god we cant deduce what may have caused it. boarder causal theories such as the causal principle also ca only be knowledge through experience.

Question 5

criticism: idea of perfection

Answer 5

some would argue that we don’t have clear idea of a perfect god or of infinity. if these concepts are not present in our minds then Descartes arguments is undermined.

Uses the concept of perfection but it is questionable if we have that concept Aquinas claims that we cant form the idea of god because our minds are finite, and are limited essentially our intellectual is too limited to form the idea of god.
P4 descarte trademark argument
Aquina- we cant do that bc we can’t form the idea of god.

hume claims we could be the cause of the idea of god in our mind. therefore our idea of god doesn’t come from got himself. Humes says we have encountered powerful and knowledgeable and loving people in our lives
These people are not perfect, but we can take these ideas of power knowledge, and love and extend them past the limit. Hume claims we have encountered powerful knowledgeable and loving people in our lives. To form the idea o god we simply take these ideas and extend them without limit.

Question 6

criticism: empiricist response

Answer 6

Hume would object to the causal adequancy principle
P1- claims that the cause of anything has to be at least as perfect as it effect
Hume claims that we cant have an idea of a cause, what we normally think of a cause is a necessary connection between two objects
Ie pen fell to the ground
The cause of letting go of the pen will hit the ground
We can think of certain effects not following certain causes
Ie let go of the pen it floats or turns pink

This is a consistent conjunction

Can be used to attach the casual adequacy principle ie p1

Hume can claim from knowing the effect of the idea of god we cant deduce what might have caused it.
This is all about achieving knowledge of the world through reason Ie apriori knowledge

Question 7

consistent conjunction

Answer 7

When even a is followed enough times by event b
We end up thinking that event a causes event b
Think that even b must happen but that’s not necessarily the case.
Based on habit rather than any necessary connection between events.

Question 8

criticism: the cartesian circle

Answer 8

Descartes uses circular reasoning he claims he have a clear and distinct idea but god gives the clear and distinct ideas

Question 9

Argument based on his continuing existence – causation

parents god myself always existed lesser than god

Answer 9

P1 the cause of my existence as a thinking thing could be (A) myself, (B) I have always existed (C) my parents (D) a being less than god (E) god
P2 I cant have caused myself to exist for then I would have created my self perfect nor can I sustain myself in existence for then I would be god.
P3 neither have I always existed for then I would be aware of this.
P4 my parents may be the cause of my physical existence but not of me as a thinking mind nor do they sustain me each moment
P5 I cant be created by a being less than god as I have the idea of god inside me and there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect.
Conc therefore by elimination only god could have created me

Question 10

criticism: the possibilities are not exhausted

Answer 10

the only options that Descartes discusses are not exhausted and he cherry-picks his examples so it isn’t a true representation of the possibility that we were created by a being or process other than god. Descartes finds fault in all but one and concluded his discussion that God is the only correct answer without any fault yet he does not spend time discussing this.

Question 11

criticism: empiricist response

not a priori

Answer 11

both the trademark and the contingency argument start from a state of affairs in the world and attempt to deduce the cause. in this way, they both resemble abductive arguments but by allegedly eliminating all other possibilities they attempt to deduce the only possible cause. because they start from an observation about how the world is eg having an idea of god they should be classed as a posterior deduction. again humes would argue that the reliance on the causal principles would undermine their status as deductions as caused and effected are an inductive generalisation.

Question 12

Criticism

just a list

Answer 12

We dont have an idea of god
Cherrying picking his points-> there are more points but the ones which he did choose fail ie premise 1 is not an exhausted list. And he’s wrong to conclude his argument
The criticism in premise 5 bc of the adequacy principle applies here.
Doesn’t say how
Don’t have to be necessary aware ir no one has a memory of being born but people were born
(Mohammed- hopefully I existed two years ago )
If he doesn’t remember there could be a reason why he didn’t create himself perfect
If we reject the casual adequacy principle the argument falls

Question 13

Med 5
Ontological argument for the existence of god
Ontology- existence

Answer 13

P1 I have an idea of god as a supremely perfect being
P2 the supremely perfect being is the being with all the perfections
P3 existence is a perfection
Conc therefore god must have the perfection of existence (god must exist)

Question 14

explanation

Answer 14

Descartes expands on this just as I can’t conceive of a mountain without a valley and just as I can’t conceive of a triangle without its 3 internal angles adding up to 180 degrees so I too cant conceive of God without existence.
In his ontological argument, Descartes thinks of existence as a predicate

Question 15

predicate

Answer 15

anything that gives us information about the subject

Question 16

subject

Answer 16

in grammar the main part of a proposition or declarative sentence or statement picks out the object that is being discussed.

Question 17

examples of the relationship between predicates and subjects

Answer 17

the balloon is red
The subject is the balloon
The predicate is ‘is red’

God is the greatest conceivable being
God is the subject
Is the greatest conceivable being is the predicate

Question 18

How is Descartes thinking of existence as a predicate?

Answer 18

We can show this by summarising Descartes argument
P1 god is the being with all the perfections
P2 existence is a perfection
Conc therefore god must have the perfection of existence (god must exist)

P1 god is the being with all the perfections
God is the subject
is the being with all the perfections is the predicate. This includes all the omni words ie omnipotence omniscience omnipresence omnibenevolence and existence
by thinking of existence as a perfection Descartes is thinking of existence as a predicate of god existence is understood by Descartes as one of god’s defining qualities or characteristics.

Question 19

criticism: the perfect island

Answer 19

gaunilo questioned an earlier version of the ontological argument, suggesting that by the same logic the perfect island must also exist as existence is a perfection. this seems ridiculous. Descartes might argue back that the idea of an island is not kike that of god. an island is not an intelligible object in the same way a triangle is so we cant discover its features just by thinking. also, the idea of a perfect island will differ between minds. however, it can be argued back again that the concept of god is also not like a triangle. it is vague, not intelligible and also differs between minds.

Question 20

criticism: existence isnt a predicate

Answer 20

a criticism out forward by many including kant and russell is that existence is not a quality of an object- it is not s predicted.

think of paper example

Question 21

empiricist response: hume fork

Answer 21

hume argues that claims about the existence of any object will always be a matter of fact. as such any claim will need investigation to discover its truth not just reason as Descartes is attempting.

nothing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. whatever we conceive as existence, we can also conceive as nonexistent. so there is no being whose non-existence implies contradiction. so there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.

according to hume fork, the most that Descartes’s ontological argument could show is that the idea of God contains the idea of existence. however, this does not actually tell us if god exists.

Question 22

Kant gives the criticism of Descartes’s ontological argument

Answer 22

1) accepts existence as a predicate

2) rejects existence as a predicate

Question 23

kant first criticism

Answer 23

1) Kant claims that even if existence is a predicate of god we can still reject the subject “god” with the predicate of his existence. This is part of a more general point that we can always reject a subject with its predicate.
Examples
Subject: unicorn
Predicate: horn
Having a horn is a necessary part of the subject unicorn
However- there is nothing stopping us from rejecting the subject unicorn with its predicate horn, it doesn’t exist.

Subject- triangle
Predicate-three angles
Having three angles is a necessary predicate of a triangle
Nothing stopping us from rejecting the subject triangle with its predicate three angles and just rejecting them both together

Subject- mountain
Predicate- valley
If u have a mountain u have to have a valley
Nothing stopping us from rejecting both

Subject- god 
Predicate- existence
If god then must have existence 
U cant have a god without existence 
Nothing stopping us from rejecting both

Question 24

kant first criticism

Answer 24

Kant claims that even if existence is a predicate of God we can still reject the subject “god” with the predicate of his existence. This is part of a more general point that we can always reject a subject with its predicate.
Examples
Subject: unicorn
Predicate: horn
Having a horn is a necessary part of the subject unicorn
However- there is nothing stopping us from rejecting the subject unicorn with its predicate horn, it doesn’t exist.

Subject- triangle
Predicate-three angles
Having three angles is a necessary predicate of a triangle
Nothing stopping us from rejecting the subject triangle with its predicate three angles and just rejecting them both together

Subject- mountain
Predicate- valley
If you have a mountain you have to have a valley
Nothing stopping us from rejecting both

Subject- god 
Predicate- existence
If god then must have existence 
you cant have a god without the existence 
Nothing stopping us from rejecting both

Question 25

2) Existence is not a predicate

Answer 25

If kant is correct then this would be fatal to decades ontological argument. As Descartes would not be entitled to premise 3- existence is a perfection, he wouldn’t be entitled to think that existence is one of the perfects that God has. Premise 3 would be false so Descartes’s argument would be invalidated.
According to kant existence is not a predicate as it does not enhance our understanding of the subject which real predicates do. Kant gives an example of his own to illustrate his point we are asked to imagine a hundred coins imagine we describe the coins as gold heavy musty round according to kant all of these are predicates as they enhance our understanding of the coins. But now imagine that we add- exist to this list, our understanding of the coins remains unchanged showing that existence is not a predicate.

Question 26

responses to kant

loch ness monster

Answer 26

Steve t davis in his work god reason and theistic proofs argues that existence could be a predicate. He claims that if we were to discover that the loch ness monster existed our understanding of the loch ness monster would be enhanced.
Another response- norman Malcolm claims that although existence is not a predicate necessary existence is a predicate.

Question 27

is this a priori knowledge?

Answer 27

unlike the trademark and contingency argument, the ontological argument seems to be based purely on the idea of god and is not based on any observation of the world. as such, if it works, then God’s existence can be said to be known a priori.