What are two arguments Descartes gives for the existence of God?

What are the main difficulties with these arguments?

First argument - 3rd meditation ‘as much reality in the cause of an idea as in its
effect’

More thoroughly explains idea of clear and distinct perceptions as it is relevant: ‘Clear’ being
that which is ‘present and apparent to an attentive mind... [and the clear object] operate upon it
[the eye] with sufficient strength... distinct is that which is so precise and different from all other
objects that it contains with itself nothing but what is clear’ (The Principles of Philosophy)
Using the truth of Cogito as a measure of all other forms of knowledge he argues ‘as a general
rule that all things we conceive very clearly and distinctly are true’ since its qualities (clear and
distinctness) guarantees it being true.

He then establishes some ideas are more C/D than others. E.g. numbers (maths) may be more
C/D than pain of a toothache (sensation) as it may not be as distinct due to its possible
impreciseness.
Then he categorises ideas with the division of ideas into images (mental representation),
volitions (attitude towards something) and judgments (proposition). Judgment is the only one
with truth value and is concerned with knowledge as it asserts a truth about an idea which
exists independently of us. The ideas of judgements are further subdivided by their origin;
factitious (created in the mind – e.g. hippogryph), adventitious (representations of external
world – e.g. sun/heat), and innate (true independently/within itself - a priori, e.g. 1800 = )

He says some ideas have more ‘objective reality’ than others. These are categorised into
hierarchy of degrees of reality:

1. Infinite substance (i.e. God)

2. Finite substance (e.g. chair)

3. Modes of substance (e.g. shadow of chair)

The argument depends on this notion: the cause of something must be more real than or at
least as real as what it’s causing. Descartes identifies the idea of God as having the most
objective reality since the most C/D idea (to Descartes) seems to be that of an infinite God. As
God is not a deceiver* (as he’s benevolent) our C/D perceptions must be true. The idea of God
didn’t come from Descartes (as he is finite being and God is infinite), and as it couldn’t have
come from nothing, the cause of the idea (of God) must necessarily exist; aka the causal
adequacy principle. This is because, as stated earlier, there must be as much reality in the
cause of an idea (an infinite God) as in its effect’, and since this infinite idea of God is actual
(rather than potential) existence is necessary. It is sometimes known as the trademark
argument: the reason man has an idea of God is because (like a craftsman) God has left a
trademark with an ‘idea of himself’ on ‘his work’ i.e. man.

2nd arg. in 3rd med.

Our existence proves God’s existence since we are a finite being and the creation and continued
existence of a finite being can only be explained by an infinite creative power, and only God has
the ‘power of existing through his own might’. Hence, since we exist, he must exist, and this is
true because our existence continually relies on an infinite being since existence of a finite in
one instance does does not constitute the existence in the next since ‘the distinction between
preservation and creation is only a conceptual one’.
*God cannot be a deceiver; ‘deceit stems necessarily from some defect’, and part of God’s essence is that
he’s perfect (therefore benevolent; a good non-deceiver); this is because Descartes has a ‘positive’ idea of
infinity. Therefore our C/D perceptions must be true, hence affirming the basis on which the proof of
existence of God relies on.

(4th meditation –explains occasional errors of judgment using C/D perceptions, and how this can still
coincide with using C/D perceptions to be a basis of proving God’s existence. God is not the cause of these
as he’s benevolent/no deceiver. It is our will (which is accountable only to ourselves) which we misuse to
create false judgements since our understanding is finite; therefore God is not the cause of error, but our
will.)

Difficulties

(Objection by Hobbes) – The argument doesn’t work if there is no idea of God. Atheists don’t
have an idea of God; they argue that the idea of God is not so C/D as assumed as it is
subjective, and not innate. This argument is, therefore, more suited to those who have prior
belief in God since a particular idea of God is presupposed.
Cartesian circle (proposed by Arnaud) – need C/D perceptions to be reliable to prove God, but
need God’s existence to be true to prove C/D perceptions are reliable. The premise and
conclusion cannot be co-dependent; it is not a logical argument. The floor in his foundationalism
also undermines his epistemological theory more generally.

(Mersenne) Unbeknown to us the idea of God could’ve conceivably have originated from
elsewhere (e.g. our upbringing), other than from ‘God’. (Hobbes) Further, attributes of God
could’ve come from external objects, not innately. Moreover, our will is contested when it
conflicts with the idea of being preordained due to God’s omnipotence and hence error isn’t
accounted for.

5th Meditation – Ontological argument

Descartes distinguishes between the existence of something and the essence of something. He
supposed that certain ideas could be thought of, but still be true independently of himself. They
also have certain necessary properties (e.g. 1800 = ), but it didn’t necessarily have to exist, or
originate empirically either, and therefore these properties are innate within the object. For
example one can conceive of a chiliagon (‘thousand-sided shape’) and its geometrical properties
without ever having seen one.

In considering the idea of God, using our intellect, we can infer certain attributes of God with
regards to his essence which will necessarily be innate. After establishing our C/D perceptions
can lead to a true idea of God he asserts its certainty with comparison to the necessary truths of
geometry, ‘Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one which I found within
me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number’.

Due to the nature of God’s essence the idea of God is a special case by which we can derive his
existence from his properties; eternal existence. Since this property is essential to the idea of
God, and the idea of God exists, God must exist. Like geometrical ideas (e.g. 1800 = ) we can
C/D perceive necessities in the concept of God and they’re true whether we realise them or not,
but in contrast, uniquely God’s existence and essence are not separate. In addition part of God’s
essence is perfection. Non-existence does not coincide with perfection as it would no longer
constitute perfection; thus must God exist.

Difficulties
Cartesian circle also applicable here since the validity of C/D and God’s existence are reliant
upon one another.

(Gottlob Frege) Descartes fails to distinguish between 1st order (nature of something, e.g.
colour) and 2nd order (designated concept e.g. quantity of things) predicates. 2nd order
predicates are concepts which can be attributed to the objects, and are not innate like 1st order
predicates, but are rather attachments. Descartes confuse existence as a 1st order predicate,
when they are actually 2nd order predicates, and therefore are not necessary.

(Kant) Descartes tailored definition does not necessarily have to amount such a definition in
reality.

(Gassendi) Even if existence and essence can’t be separated, existence must still come prior to
essence. (Caterus) Therefore all we can conclude is that if God exists, then he necessarily exists;
it doesn’t in itself conclusively prove his existence.