Mr

Questions on Descartes' logics in proving the existence of Supreme Being

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God by using philosophical and logical approach. He gradually expands his logics beginning from proving the finite and frail nature of human intelligence to ultimately using the knowledge of such nature can lead us into confirming the existence of supreme and infinite being. Despite the fact that the logics of Descartes uses are carefully examined and ingeniously thought, it is irrefutable that his assertions lack plausibility to non-believers because his logics are based on the preconceived ideas in which God all ready exists. As ironic as it sounds, the logic is fabricated in a way non-believers are not even able to riddle through his pieces of "evidences" before admitting God's existence.

In the first and second Meditation, Descartes tries to explain about the nature of the human mind and its relationship with knowledge of God. In describing the nature of knowledge in general, Descartes explains everything is susceptible to doubts unless the very foundation of that knowledge is certain. Descartes doubts everything he thinks he knows because he is not even sure whether the things, which seem so obviously transparent, really do exist. He explains the unreliability of human perceptions and senses through explaining how real dreams are. Descartes says "How often, asleep at night, am I convinced of just such familiar events - that I am here in my dressing-gown, sitting by the fire - when in fact I am lying undressed in bed! ... As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep" (13). In the sentence above, Descartes proves the imperfect and frail nature of human perceptions and the body of knowledge that is build upon them.

Lacking assurance for anything except knowing of his presence, Descartes is not sure of anything that he has built and learned over the years. After speculations, Descartes concludes that there must exist the ultimate Supreme God or deceptive Demon that is the very creator of all things. Descartes shows his belief about supreme beings' presence in the sentences, "And yet firmly rooted in my mind is the long-standing opinion that there is an omnipotent God who made me the kind of creature that I am... But perhaps God would not have allowed me to be deceived in this way, since he is said to be supremely good." (14), "I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me"(15). Though what he asserts up to Meditation II is not his final piece of reasoning, Descartes' explanations about the nature of knowledge and God's existence leading up to Meditation II show flaws that are saliently related to his foundation of subsidiary arguments. Descartes' assertion about the nature of knowledge, in which he asserts about foundation of knowledge, must be God is itself a controversy. What Descartes asserts about humans knowing about the very fundamental foundation of knowledge is imaginary and beyond the reach of human intelligence. After acknowledging how limited human imagination is and how prone to error his mind are (21), Descartes is now asserting that he is able to deduce or reasonably guesswork the ultimate foundation of all knowledge, which he characterize as supreme God, eternal, infinite, , omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of all things that apart from him (28). Descartes, quite clearly, evades proving God's existence in a direct manner. Without providing any logical proof or answer, Descartes assumes there must be God or Demon that is the creator and foundation of all knowledge. Descartes almost abrupt introduction of God and even Demon, which is just a circumlocution of saying mal-intentioned God, is a clear sign of his preconceived attitude toward God's existence. Since Descartes does not provide enough proofs that are believable, it is not possible for non-believers to follow Descartes' arguments logically and in order. Descartes nonchalant manner towards validating the truth is expressed in a sentence, "Perhaps there may be some who would prefer to deny the existence of so powerful a God rather than believe that everything else is uncertain. Let us not argue with them, but grant them that everything said about God is a fiction" (14). From the ambivalent and vague sentence above, it is obvious how Descartes is not arguing about or proving the existence of God in the most clear and objectively constructed reasoning.

In the third Meditation, Descartes reinforces and ossifies his argument with an introduction of objective reality. Objective reality, as Descartes hints, is a fact, which Descartes finds