Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
God is perfect by definition, just as a triangle has three angles, by definition.
But Descartes does not say that triangularity is a condition of the triangle's existence.
It is not a necessary condition of a winged horse that it exist.
What Descartes argues is that if God is a perfect Being, and if perfection implies existence, then a perfect Being must exist.
For what, in and of itself, is more manifest than that a supreme being exists, that is, that God, to whose essense alone existence belongs, exists?
David Hume brings up a nice counter argument that can be applied to Descartes. We are not justified in attributing more to God than we can gather from the environment. Because the world is imperfect, we cannot assume that God would be perfect. I don't know if that helps at all, but it is a good argument against the idea that God is a perfect being.
Whose definition yours?
So do we question the definition? or the reasoning?
Is more about who is making this claim rather than the notion.Sorry as i have not been educated in philosophy I might not be showing due reverence to the proposal.Objective evidence it appears is whats being claimed to be used, where in fact there is none.Its the logic of false premiss surely.A perfect red herring.
Hi xris. Descartes uses the terms 'objective' and 'formal' in pretty much the opposite way to the way we use them now. By 'objective', he means 'is an object of consciousness', what we would call a 'subjective' experience of something. By formal, he refers to the thing's fundamental, observer-independent structure (what we call objective) rather than the Aristotelian meaning of the word.
David Hume brings up a nice counter argument that can be applied to Descartes. We are not justified in attributing more to God than we can gather from the environment. Because the world is imperfect, we cannot assume that God would be perfect. I don't know if that helps at all, but it is a good argument against the idea that God is a perfect being.
So, you are saying that if God were a perfect being, then God would exist? Of course, Hume's objection assumes that God created that world, and that since the world is imperfect, God is imperfect. I am not sure that is correct. A perfect being might have created an imperfect world because it would be impossible for such a Being to created a perfect world given what He had to work with.
Thanks for that but does that not make it even less meaningful to have a subjective view on a objectively viewed premiss.Objective,whose objective view? accepted by who as an objective value?
This is where Descartes assertion that something with subjective reality must have at least as much objective reality in the world or, confusingly, in his parlance, something with objective reality (an idea) must have at least as much formal reality (something that exists).
Yes. I am very much convinced by the average aggregate of evidence that we now have, that this is the very kingpin of the problem--the not realizing that that formal existence is exactly, and nothing more than, the formal reality of the activity of those physical things in his head, which did, in fact, exist when he was alive.
I don't think Hume was saying an imperfect world implies an imperfect God, but that an imperfect world does not imply a perfect God. In other words, there is nothing in the world that suggests a perfect God exists, so Descartes' assumption that God is perfect is unfounded.
---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------
.
I don't know that that isn't something he grasped,
Cheers, Ken. You've raised some points I was also interested in.
I never believed in the triangle argument. Descartes compares the relation between the essence of God and God's existence with the essence of a triangle and the fact that its angles add up to 180 degrees. This analogy is false so far as I can see, insofar as the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees is part of the essence of a triangle, not a condition of its existence, i.e. a triangle (a figure with three angles adding up to 180 degrees) may be conceived but possibly not experienced.
Your specific analogy here does not seem an analogy to me. I don't see how the idea of a winged horse not containing an existence truth value is analogous to a triangle having three angles, considering that a triangle is quite clearly, by definition and etymological deduction, something that has three angles.
But your argument is very much along the lines of Descartes' first proof of God's existence, and I'm open to discuss this, so long as the focus is not detracted from his second proof. Reason being that there is a relation between the two: Descartes' poses a relation between perfection and existence such that the thing that is most perfect is most real. This in itself is not only arguable, but probably worthy of reject, but assuming this point, God's existence still does not follow, for the reason of my second argument against Descartes' second proof. And, of course, the circular argument remains. I'm quite happy to ignore this point unless discussion depends on its consideration. I'm much more interested in if the circular argument may be true.
Thanks again people!
---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
Hello again Ken. Having read this, I'm wondering if my post was perhaps too subtle, or not forthright enough.
Descartes' argument is that if the idea of God, which contains his existence as true, then it follows that God's existence is true. It does not follow that since a perfect being may exist, there is a perfect being. It merely shows, if you accept such logic, that if a being is perfect, it must exist. One can state as easily as Descartes' states that God is perfect as God is not. And this is even before one approaches the question of whether that which is most perfect is most real, which is almost certainly not true.
It seems to me that he is saying that his analogy between God existing, and the sum of the angles of a triangle being 180o is exact. Just as it is inconceivable that the sum of the angles should not be 180, so, it is inconceivable that God should not exist. "Inconceivable" here seems to me to mean something like, "self-contradictory". So the sum of the angles not equaling 180o is a necessary falsity, and so is God not existing a necessary falsity. And just as someone who has not studied geometry might think it possible for a triangle not to have angles which sum 180o, so, it might be possible for someone who has a confused idea of God to think that God might not exist. But that has to do with confusion, and not with the nature of a triangle, or the nature of God.
Ide like a show of hands for those who think this meditation convinces them god exists.It is a play of words on the logic of illogical thinking.I think therefore i am.
Whether an argument convinces anyone is not much of a criterion for whether the argument is a good argument or not. Convincing is a psychological, not a logical matter. It is the difference between proving something, and proving to someone. I might present a perfectly good argument to someone, which proves the conclusion, but I may still not be able to prove it to someone, for a number of reasons unconnected with th logic of the argument. He may not understand the argument; he may not want to accept the conclusion because it is inconsistent with some dearly held belief of his; and so on.
Thomas Aquinas pointed out, long ago, that very few people would be convinced by the ontological argument. And he said it was a weakness. But not a weakness in the logic of the argument. You have to show where the argument goes wrong (if it does). Not that it is not convincing.
I understand the academic reasoning behind a debate but eventually a conclusion must be reached on its value as a logical means of determining.It appears to be the proposer has a certain validity and that it causes a constant round of intellectual discussion.If i had proposed this idea it would have been discounted almost immediately.The king has an opinion that must be observed.