Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

A brief critique of Descartes’s arguments on the existence of

God
Within meditations 3 and 5, French philosopher Rene Descartes attempts to prove the
existence of God rationally. That is, he attempts to use epistemological and ontological
arguments in order to prove the existence of a perfect, infinite, omnipotent,
omnibenevolent and supremely intelligent being – God. In this essay, I will briefly outline
the positions that Descartes takes in attempting to prove the existence of God. They are, the
causal proof that God must exist and the ontological proof that is related to the essence and
being of God, as Descartes understands. This essay will critique his position and comment
on how compelling the essence of Descartes’s arguments are, while also acknowledging
valid objections that have been raised.

Within Meditation 3, Descartes posits that anything that he comes to realize through clear
and distinct perception must be true, however, he cannot be certain of this for God may
cause him to ‘err’ as he had doubted before (Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009 p.48). Thus,
Descartes goes on to examine the nature of God and whether God exists at all (Ariew, R.
Watkins, E. 2009 p.48). Descartes first draws a distinction between formal and objective
realities (Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009 p.49). Formal reality refers to something existing within
its particular, essential form and this can include entities which are infinite, finite and
modal. Whereas objective reality refers to the representational substance of an idea or
object. While all substances hold finite formal reality (except God), ideas within the mind
have modal formal reality (as thoughts are a mode of mind) as well as objective reality when
related to external objects they represent. So, the amount of objective reality contained
within an idea is entirely dependent upon the amount of formal reality of the object that
the idea is representing. This means that the idea of a goat, for example, holds as much
objective reality within the mind as the formal reality of a goat external to the mind. To
clarify further, if the goat has a formal reality that can be quantified as ten ‘units of reality’
the objective reality of the idea of the goat cannot go beyond those ten units, otherwise it
would fail to be a true representation of the goat which exists formally. The argument that
Descartes posits here is in relation to cause and effect, that is, ideas cannot logically come in
to effect with more amount of reality than its cause (Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009 p.49). This
means that the idea of a being that has infinite objective reality can only come in to
existence from the cause of a being with infinite formal reality, which is God. Therefore, the
idea of an infinite being is innately within us, as finite, thinking things, and is originated from
the infinite substance of God.

When examining the essence of Descartes’s meditation more broadly, the causality
argument that is posited is indeed logically coherent. While all things within the universe are
limited to finite substances, the only rational explanation of causality would have to be that
these finite entities have come from a first, infinite cause (Brecher, 1976). An infinite being
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

would also necessarily hold more formal reality (Brecher, 1976). Through the development
of physics and cosmology since the time of Descartes, the proposition of an expanding
universe within the physics community has become firmly established (Berger, 2012). This
theory can be used as an example to back up Descartes’s argument in favour of an uncaused
first cause. This means that it is unlikely that a form of infinity exists within the universe,
except through the idea of an infinite being as Descartes postulates. If an actual infinite
regress does not exist, this means there can be no infinite chain of causal events, therefore
the chain of events is finite. Therefore, there was a beginning that would have to come from
an uncreated, infinite being – God. However, if God is indeed infinite and never ending, then
this would mean that he is manifested within physical objects and our finite minds, but if
this were the case then God could not truly be infinite as he would be restricted by the same
laws of finitude as our minds are and as physical objects are. A response can be raised here
then that the limits in which our physical minds and bodies exist, is merely one portion or
section of an infinite, metaphysical, immanent and transcendent God and that the
observable universe and mind is all that we know of this absolute, never-ending entity.
Nevertheless, although the concept of an infinite being becomes difficult to fully
comprehend, the causal argument that Descartes asserts, and the wider implications that
can be drawn from it, make it reasonable to believe that there exists a sort of supreme,
infinite being that had kickstarted the chain of cause and effect of ideas and wider reality
itself.

Descartes provides another argument in his attempt to prove the existence of God which is
often referred to as the ontological argument of God. That is, an argument in relation to
God’s actual being rather than a supremely powerful, infinite being as a first cause.
Descartes proceeds to examine the essence of things and gives the example of the essential
properties of the triangle that are unchangeable and eternal (Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009
p.58). He explains that there exist principles, such as a triangle’s three angles being equal to
two right angles, that necessarily make the triangle a triangle and that his free will cannot
affect these laws and attempt to change the nature of the triangle as it appears in his mind
(Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009 p.59). Using this logic, Descartes contends that one of the
essential properties of God is perfection and something cannot be perfect if it does not
exist, so therefore God must necessarily exist if he is perfect, just as the triangle cannot exist
if it fails to meet its essential characteristics (Ariew, R. Watkins, E. 2009 p.59). However,
objections can certainly be raised here in regards to the idea of ‘perfection’. If God is indeed
a perfect being, then why would God create things that are imperfect and if he does create
imperfect things, does this then not mean that he himself is imperfect. Of course, the
definition of ‘perfect’ then would become subjective. Although the response can be made
that our ‘finite and imperfect’ minds are unable to comprehend the perfection of God, this
still begs the question as to why we would enquire in to entities that our minds will never,
by definition, be able to fully comprehend. It is for this reason that I believe the ontological
proof that is provided by the likes of Descartes and Anselm is poor in attempting prove the
existence of God.
Ahmad Qadri Student ID: 1081119

In conclusion, within Descartes’s meditations as a whole, the arguments in favour of God

are vital in order to lay a foundation for Descartes’s philosophy regarding clear and distinct
perceptions. Descartes formulates a substantial argument within the third meditation
through the causal argument in relation to God’s existence, yet it faces objections in terms
of its unclear understanding of God as ‘infinite’ in finite bodies. The ontological argument
faces some valid objections that cannot be responded to satisfactorily. By this it is meant
that while the causal argument relies on logical laws, the argument posited in the fifth
meditation is heavily subject to categorical mistakes regarding definition and a lack of
comprehension for the concept of ‘perfection’. Nevertheless, I still believe that the causal
argument gives enough reason to believe in an uncaused first cause, that would most
rationally be God.

René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Ariew, R., and Watkins, E. (eds), Modern
Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources, Second Edition, Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 46-54 (Meditation 3).

BERGER, A. L. 2012. The Big Bang and Georges Lemaître: Proceedings of a Symposium in honour of G.
Lemaître fifty years after his initiation of Big-Bang Cosmology, Louvain-Ia-Neuve, Belgium, 10–13
October 1983, Springer Science & Business Media.

BRECHER, B. 1976. Descartes' causal argument for the existence of God. International Journal for
Philosophy of Religion, 7, 418-432.
René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Ariew, R., and Watkins, E. (eds), Modern
Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources, Second Edition, Indianapolis/Cambridge:
Hackett Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 54-68 (Meditations 4, 5, & 6)