During his Meditations on the First Philosophy, Descartes suspends belief in all material and metaphysical substance before reconstructing from founding element of the thinker's existence, to finally conclude that God exists alongside material things and that the soul and the body are distinct. However, the transition from the existence of the thinker to the existence of genuine material beings requires a supremely powerful God who is not a deceiver. Descartes states in Meditation I that “since deception and error seem to be imperfections, the less powerful they make my original cause, the more likely it is that I am so imperfect as to be deceived all the time.” » [1] To establish any confidence in the outside world, it is imperative that Descartes prove the existence of God, and he attempts this feat at three distinct points in his famous Meditations on the First Philosophy. In Meditation III, Descartes argues that the thought of an idea requires a cause, which must have a greater formal reality than the objective reality of the idea – this is what is considered Descartes' first argument in favor of the existence of God in this article. Descartes' first argument for the existence of God rests on an enigmatic conception of an "idea" and how the thinker can understand incomprehensible ideas. However, if we accept Descartes' questionable claim that the thinker can "understand" the infinite qualities of God, then it would be possible for the thinker to reconstruct an artificial notion of God. Ultimately, Descartes' first argument for the existence of God will be refuted, forcing readers to rely on his two later arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"?Get the original essayDescartes' first argument for the existence of God is reconstructed below, preceded by two crucial axioms and two definitions that support the premises of his argument. Descartes' first argument in favor of the existence of God Axiom 1: Something cannot arise from nothing (40).Axiom 2: There is at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of this cause (40).Definition 1: The objective mode of being belongs to ideas by their nature; the formal mode of being belongs to the causes of ideas (42). Definition 2: God is an infinite substance, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful… (45).Premise A – From Axiom 2 and Definition 1: For a given idea to contain this or that objective reality, it must surely derive from a cause which contains at least as much formal reality as there is an objective reality in the idea (41).Premise B – From axiom 1: If the objective reality of an idea cannot come from me , it must come from something else (41).Premise C – From definition 2: The ideas of the attributes of God are such that they cannot come from me (45). Premise D – They must come from God; therefore, God exists (45). Descartes is careful to defend himself against accusations of "thinking something into existence", as he seems to do in his Ontological Argument in Meditation V. Descartes writes that "the nature of an idea is such that, of it -itself, it only requires formal reality that which it draws from my thought (41). Descartes postulates that thinking an idea does not immediately give this idea a formal reality. However, as the argument above reconstructs, the thought of an idea requires a cause, which must have more reality than the idea (by Axiom 2) and must be a formal reality(according to definition 1). Descartes also does not think of God, but conceives the objective ideas which are the attributes of God – infinity, eternity, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. – which could not come from him or from other corporeal bodies around him, because nothing on earth possesses them. attributes. Thus, Descartes concludes that God must necessarily exist. Compared to Descartes' two later arguments, his first argument for the existence of God is apparently indisputable. Yet even if Descartes' first argument for the existence of God is inductively valid, it is not valid. The notion of idea in Descartes, as well as the way in which we conceive such an idea, will be questioned with reference to premise C. Then, premise C will be questioned on the basis of our ability to artificially construct ideas of supreme perfection to arrive at an image of God. Despite Descartes' more operational approach – conceiving of God's attributes rather than God himself – it still seems impossible that anyone could have even an objective idea of ​​these immeasurable attributes of God, which could invalidate the premise C. Infinity, eternity, omniscience and omnipotence are impossible to conceive, even in an objective way of thinking, because they do not exist on Earth. Since Descartes has already suspended belief in the external world through Meditation III, he could not have expected to find such qualities around him and must instead rely on knowledge of his own existence. Descartes himself claims to be manifestly imperfect, so these notions of perfection could not be grasped. It seems that Descartes professed complete knowledge of the infinite, immutable and all-powerful nature of God when in reality he possessed only the slightest apperception which extended little further than a simple knowledge of the words "infinite". », “immutable” and “omnipotent”. Descartes responds to this objection with one of the most controversial and enigmatic statements in all of his Meditations on First Philosophy: It matters little that I do not understand the infinite, or that there are additional attributes of God whom I cannot in any way grasp, and perhaps cannot even reach my thoughts; for it is in the nature of the infinite not to be grasped by a finite being like me. It is enough for me to understand the infinite, and to judge all the attributes which I clearly perceive and which I know as implying a certain perfection (46). Descartes admits in fact that he only has a very rudimentary understanding of the attributes of God, which does not allow him to completely “grasp” the ideas. According to John Cottingham, Descartes believes that “one can know or understand something without fully grasping it: “In the same way that we can touch a mountain with our hands but we cannot put our arms around it…know something , it’s touching her.” with his thoughts” (Note 46). Readers can accept such an argument as a sufficient explanation of how Descartes can "understand" the ideas of infinity, immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence – all of which are impossible to encapsulate in his thought – without them. “grasp” fully. Thus, Descartes provides a plausible defense against the objection that it is impossible to possess an idea of ​​God's infinite attributes. However, Descartes' definition of an "idea" complicates this claim. Descartes admits: “Some of my thoughts are like images of things, and it is only in these cases that the term “idea” is strictly appropriate – for example when I think of a man, of a chimera or in heaven. , or an angel, or God” (37). By reconsidering.. (21).