Is There A God This Has Been One Of The Most Debated Questions Of Mankind Religious Icons, Historians, Archeologists, And Oth

Is there a God? This has been one of the most debated questions of mankind. Religious icons, historians, archeologists, and others have questioned, investigated, and again questioned the existence of God. In his Discourse on Method, René Descartes attempts to answer this question by means of a meticulous process. He means to guide his readers by the hand to arrive at his assertion that there is, in fact, a “Nature more perfect than [ourselves]” (Potter 29)
In Part IV of the Discourse on Method, Descartes attempts to convince his readers of the certain existence of a superior being. This is a very strategic method on Descartes’ part. After reading three full sections of Descartes’ diatribe on how they should go about life, readers are entrapped in a world of doubt; a world to which Descartes has led them, and a world in which he is the only one able to get them out. While in Descartes’ world of doubt, the reader finds him or herself stumbling upon a somewhat lengthy paragraph concerning the existence of God. After reading this paragraph, the reader is convinced that Descartes is correct in his claim, for he led the reader by the hand through his discourse, and his proof of God. Following Descartes’ idea that everything must have a cause, and the cause must have as much reality as the effect, Descartes proves the existence of God. Descartes also uses his cogito to support his logical progression. This progression is as follows: He has an idea of God, an infinitely perfect being; the idea of God has formal existence; whatever has formal existence must have a formally existing cause; there must be as much total perfection in the cause of the idea as there is in the idea itself; his idea of God has infinite total perfection; therefore, God has formal existence. He has broken his process down to the bare essentials for the reader. This is what convinces that Descartes is correct. His method is so simple, so concise, that any doubting reader is convinced by the mere simplicity of his argument. He continues once this is established.
He asserts that a Perfect Being must exist, for he knows he is not perfect, therefore something must be perfect. He is certain that he is not perfect, because he also asserts that assuredness is more perfect than doubt. Since Descartes is constantly doubting, his claim is entirely valid. Specifically, he states that:
I must hold this notion from some Nature which in reality was more perfect. As for the thoughts of many other objects external to me, as of the sky, the earth, light, heat, and a thousand more, I was less at a loss to know whence these came; for since I remarked in them nothing which seemed to render them superior to myself, I could believe that, if these were true, they were dependencies on my own nature, in so far as it possessed a certain perfection, and, if they were false, that I held them from nothing, that is to say, that they were in me because of a certain imperfection of my nature. But this could not be the case with the idea of a nature more perfect than myself. . . (29)

This is the another piece of the foundation of Descartes’ argument for the existence of a God. Descartes uses everything that he perceives to support his argument. In other words, he asserts that all that he perceives must come from somewhere, and if all that he perceives are falsities of his senses, this is simply another testament to his imperfection. Descartes has proved the existence of a perfect being. This perfect being, however, does not canote all that the reader thinks of when he or she thinks of, “God”. Descartes has merely proven the existence of a being that is perfect. Descartes’ God is somewhat of a representation of his own imperfections, for the Perfect Being that he describes does not doubt, knows all, and sees all as clear and distinct. In his third meditation, he elaborates further into his existence of God.
Descartes has the hypothesis of an evil demon deceiving him all the time. Descartes uses yet another brilliant approach to prove the existence of God. According to Descartes: " There is apparently no certain knowledge as long as one does not know the author of one's existence". He starts first questioning himself what deceiving means or tells us, after some thought he reasons that this shows a weakness, if one is perfect he or she would not deceive. Deceiving is not a perfection, therefore the evil demon is not perfect. Although Descartes has the idea of God, he does not quite understand from where he got this idea. In other words, he has an idea of an infinite being, even though he is a finite being. A finite being is not capable of developing an infinite idea, this means that God must of deposit that idea in him; the evil demon in not infinite and the reason for this is that he is a deceiver and that shows a weakness. Descartes’ logical progression for this proof is as follows: God is a non-deceiver; the idea of God is infinite; Descartes possesses the idea of God; Descartes is not an infinite being; God (an infinite being) deposited the idea of God into him; God must exist. After these contentions are proven by Descartes, he uses the established ground to delve into new topics.
“But since God is no deceiver”, says Descartes numerous times. Descartes uses the premise that God does not deceive humans to establish other truths. One of the primary points Descartes makes is that because God does not deceive, Descartes must have a body. Because he experiences pain, hunger, love, hate, and other emotions, he must have a body. These feelings cannot be conjured up by his imagination, merely because of the fact that our perfect God does not deceive. By establishing an existence of God, Descartes is able to convince others more thoroughly of his beliefs. He uses the same logic and meticulousness to prove other truths as he does with God. In a sense, in proving God, Descartes is establishing a “trust” with his students. He is establishing a trust that he will give all topics the same careful examining, and more importantly for his readers, careful explanation of his beliefs. This is how Descartes uses his proof of the existence of God. Whether his claims are valid, however, is an entirely different matter.
A fundamental criticism of Descartes is that he operates on false pretenses. Many of his arguments are based upon assumptions. This is not an effective method of writing or convincing. An experienced reader who can question while still accepting will easily realize this. Descartes plainly states that he is doubting everything. However, soon after we read his statement that he holds nothing for certain, we read of his proof of the existence of God. In this dissertation (quoted earlier), Descartes cites the thoughts of objects external to him. He immediately assumes that they were put into his head by a more perfect being. Even though he says that if they were not put into his head by a more perfect being, they were merely an attribute of his imperfection, for he would be having thoughts of objects that were not clear and distinct, he is still making false assumptions. He is assuming that these ideas could not have been put into his head by another entity, for he doubts their very existence. For example, Descartes asserts that the idea of a perfect being could not be in his head without the existence of a perfect being, for if it were a true idea of perfection, then it would not be able to exist without a perfect being to create it. However, Descartes does not address in full detail his notion of perfection. In other words, he simply defines perfection as “without flaw”. The loophole that Descartes fails to mention, however, is the thought of the idea of perfection being put into his head by an imperfect entity. For example, when we were young, if we were to ask about God making a mistake, we were told, “God doesn’t make mistakes, he is perfect”. Therefore, we assume perfect to be without flaw, often the flaws that we are most concerned about. For example, Descartes claims that God does not doubt. Clearly, Descartes is troubled by the fact that he must doubt all. God, perfection, and most likely, many other ideas, were therefore most likely put into our heads by imperfect sources. An effect necessarily has as much reality as its cause, but does it have as much perfection? This is not necessarily so. Therefore, there is a fundamental flaw in Descartes’ proof of the existence of God. He makes an assumption that because he has thoughts of perfection, there must be a perfect entity. He makes use of technical (and somewhat confusing) writing to hide this flaw, but it is very obvious. It is very probable that Descartes notions of perfection and God were put into his head by imperfect sources. This brings up Descartes’ fundamental flaw in his discourse – it is impossible to doubt all.
Descartes is correct in thinking that we should doubt all. However, when we do so, we are entrapping ourselves in a vicious circle. “I think, hence I am”. What if “you aren’t”? Descartes is assuming the “I” to exist. Descartes is not all-doubting, although he so claims. Descartes cannot claim to doubt all, for it will lead nowhere. It is seen in reading The Discourse that in order to make philosophical claims, we must not be all-doubting. We must not dismiss ideas as soon as they enter our heads. We must consider them, and in order to do this, we cannot always doubt, for we must sometimes believe. It is a fundamental error in persuasive writing to claim that one may be wrong as he is writing. Descartes simply weakens his argument by saying that he may be wrong. If a reader deems a writer to be wrong, then let the reader prove that through methodic means. A fundamental flaw in Descartes writing is that he is unsure of himself. Beyond this, however, Descartes is very methodic in his proofs.
Although he may make assumptions, and be somewhat unsure of his claims, Descartes is a very methodic and effective philosopher. His methods are extremely convincing, and by “leading his readers by the hand”, he makes a very strong argument. Modesty, however, may be his fatal weakness. He is extremely systematic in his writing, but a lack of confidence makes the writing seem a useless tirade. He proves an existence of God with a very meticulous method, but a basis of weak elements and a lack of assertiveness diminishes the merit of his procedure. Descartes makes a great argument for his belief, and despite a few flaws, it is very sound and convincing.

User Comments