FREE ESSAY ON GOD CANNOT EXIST USING DESCARTES' ARGUEMENTS

GOD CANNOT EXIST USING DESCARTES' ARGUEMENTS

May 25th, 2000
Descartes sets about proving the existence of God through his meditations on knowledge in
an effort to prove the skeptics of his time wrong. He first determines that human
knowledge is based entirely too much on unproved presuppositions. He argues that this
makes it difficult to distinguish between truth and error, since we cannot recognize true
knowledge. Descartes proposes that the quest for knowledge must be based upon universal
doubt. Specifically, he proposes the following in relation to his universal methodic
doubt:
1. In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life, to doubt, as
far as possible, of all things.
2. We ought also to consider as false all that is doubtful.
3. We ought not meanwhile to make use of doubt in the conduct of life...
4. Why we may doubt of sensible things.
5. Why we may also doubt of mathematical demonstrations.
6. We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and this is the first knowledge we
acquire when we philosophize in order.
Descartes proceeded to strip away his knowledge base in order to determine the one
indubitable fact, Cogito, ergo sum. From this absolute knowledge of his own existence, he
set about deducing the existence of God through ontological argument.
? In our minds, the idea of God is one of an infinitely perfect Being
? An infinitely perfect being must have existence, otherwise it would not be infinitely
perfect.
? Therefore, God exists.
In proving the existence of God, Descartes set the groundwork for determining that God
created man. He further postulated that God, being infinitely perfect and not a deceiver,
could not have provided man with the deceptive powers of knowledge. Therefore, man's
mental faculties are determined to be trustworthy provided we separate what there is of
clear and distinct in the knowledge from what is obscure and confused. Using this
reasoning, man must discard all previous knowledge which is doubt-ridden, all
sensory-based knowledge (as perceptions can be misleading), and all intellection. As a
result, skepticism is removed and valid knowledge possible.
Descartes primary purpose was the defense of human knowledge against the attacks of the
skeptics. He was justified in excluding preconceived notions, presuppositions, and
traditions in determining the limits of knowledge. Descartes discarded the ability of the
mind to know truth and the human abilities of contradiction and sufficient reason. In
doing so, he made a solution to the problem impossible.
As it relates to his theory of the existence of God, Descartes universal doubt refutes
his own conclusion as to God's existence. Descartes formed an idea of God as an
infinitely good being. He would have had to discover this idea within his own mind.
According to his principle of universal doubt, he cannot simply know whether his
conception of God is correct or incorrect. He would have, as a matter of his own
principle, considered it as false until proven otherwise. Therefore, since the idea of
God is in doubt, the trustworthiness of man's reasoning must also be doubtful and
Descartes cannot escape his own real doubt.
Descartes uses a process of reasoning, a mathematical formulae, in attempting to
demonstrate God's existence. If his reasoning is of demonstrably doubtful validity, how
can Descartes demonstrate God's existence? The validity of Descartes reasoning is
supposed to flow as a consequence of the infinite perfection of God; and God's infinite
perfect is made certain through Descartes' reasoning powers before he has even proven
that these reasoning powers are valid and trustworthy. Descartes assumes the very thing
beforehand which he intends to prove afterwards. (Begging the question).
Descartes accepts the trustworthiness of his faculties in demonstrating the existence and
infinite perfection of God, and that is illegitimate. A doubtfully valid faculty will
produce a doubtfully valid argument which will, in turn, produce a doubtfully valid
conclusion. The entire argument for God's existence is therefore nullified by a suspect
reasoning process. Since he proves the reliability of his reason and process by means of
God's veracity, the proof of his reliability cannot be established beyond doubt.
Thus, Descartes attempt to vindicate the validity of human knowledge failed, because, by
rejecting the reliability of his own powers to discover and know truth, he made it
impossible for himself to remove himself from his own universal doubt. Further, Descartes
has marked inconsistencies in the manner in which he applies his procedure. He purports
to reject everything in his pursuit of fundamental knowledge, even principles of
contradiction and sufficient reason. In reality, he does not. He assumes the truth of
these principles and uses them repeatedly.
Cogito ergo sum is based upon the validity of the principle of contradiction. This
principle states that it is impossible for something to be and not be at the same time.
Descartes becomes aware of his own existence by thinking or doubting. Why? Because he
perceives that it is impossible to think and not think and to exist and not exist at the
same time. If he were consistent and seriously doubted the principle of contradiction, he
would have to agree that it is possible for an entity to think and not think, to exist
and not exist at the same time. Then, according to his own supposition, he could not be
sure after all that the fact of his existence is certain. Only by granting the validity
and truth of the principle of contradiction beforehand, can his existence be established
as an objective fact. That is exactly what he does.
The same line of reasoning applies to his proof of God's existence and infinite
perfection. Descartes rejection of the principle of contradiction invalidates his
arguments because, as long as this principle is not established and accepted, he could
never be sure whether it would be possible for God to exist and not exist at the same
time.
Similarly, Descartes would have to remain doubtful as to whether God could be veracious
and not veracious, deceiving and not deceiving unless the principle of contradiction was
taken for granted before Descartes begins to prove God's existence. Descartes does not
accept this principle of contradiction throughout his reasoning. This is a glaring
inconsistency in his arguments.
Descartes further conducts his inquiry into the existence of God with the supposition
that he doubts the principles of sufficiency and causality. Unfortunately, he uses these
principles before he has proven their validity. To wit: Descartes a posteriori argument
for the existence of God.
Descartes believes that God is an infinitely perfect being that could not have originated
in our minds because an idea such as this would exceed the causality of the mind, as the
mind is less perfect than the content of the idea itself. Consequently, the idea had to
be produced by God himself otherwise there would be no sufficient reason for the presence
of such an idea in the mind.
Clearly, Descartes uses the principles of sufficient reason and causality in
demonstrating the existence of God, even though he doubts their validity. Therefore, if
he lets these principles stand as doubtful, his entire argument is nullified by doubt. If
he accepts them as valid prior to establishing their validity, he is acting in contrary
to his fundamental doubt doctrine. In either case, he makes the existence of God
impossible.
Descartes could not prove God's existence consistently as he could only do so through the
use of a reasoning process which, according to his own principles, was essentially
doubtful in its validity. The only thing he could ever be certain of was his own
existence. This too, strictly speaking, he should have doubted, because he had doubted
the principle of contradiction and the testimony of his own consciousness. 
If Descartes had been consistent, he would have aligned with the skeptics because his
universal doubt left him no other choice. Universal doubt, therefore, is a flawed course
in pursuing an understanding of human knowledge and the existence of God. Complete doubt
cannot lead to an understanding of human knowledge.