| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> René Descartes argument on god?Question: René Descartes argument on god!? rene argued the following
Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing!. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God!. Therefore, God exists!. now!.!.!.!. can anybody please translate what that means !?!?!? im pretty stupid and dont get what he is trying to say!.!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I believe you have to consider more then just this summary to understand what he's trying to communciate!.!.!. but the following I believe is what Descarte was driving at!.!.!. 1) Everything you can touch in Reality( a chair, couch, your computer, etc!.) has a cause (a carpenter, Dell, Apple, etc!.) 2) Each of these Causes has a more direct cause( parents of the carpenter, parents of manufacturers, parents of programmers, Literally Mom & Dad to each!.!.) 3) Each parent (Mom & Dad) had parents and so on till the dawn of Civilization!. 4) Ulitmately the buck, must stop somewhere( the cause of the cause of the cause or the parent of the parent of the parent, etc!.!.!.) 5) Descarte, I believe, is saying that all these necessary 'causes' stop at God!. 6) God as some Greek-Philosophers suggested is the Uncaused-Cause, or the Unmovable-Mover!. 7) God, in this sense, never had a beginning, and is ultimately responsible for the chair, couch, and computer you see in Reality!. 8) The question then becomes which religion did God designate to be right!? None, All, or some combinatinon thereof!? We may never know!.!.!. and that's one of the ultimate questions of Philosophy to answer!.!.!. Atheist say there is No God, Theist Say God exists and can be accesed through such-and-such methods, Deist say God is nature and can be found and accesed through applying natures principles, and Agnostics combine all the above and yet reserve judgement completely in light of present or future evidence to be discovered!.!. 5) Personally I take the Agnostic route, because if you deny evidence based on the Stigma of the category of that evidence you may miss out on Truth because of that prejudice!.!.(Christian, Atheist, Deist, etc!.!.!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com Descartes' argument on God is very lengthy!. This part of the argument is on into the "meditations" you have to read the first part to understand it!. It starts with basically that everything could be an illusion!. But not himself because he thinks!. "I think; therefore, I am!." Now, since a line has just been drawn and we know that at least we exist we can move forward!. He goes on to explain how things that can be clearly, distinctly and noncontradictorily percieved must be real!. Finally he gets to this piece on God!. Basically since God is not physically seen yet we have a perception of him, he must exist!.Www@QuestionHome@Com It has been my very limited experience that people who consider themselves to be Philosophers tend to try to demonstrate their brilliance by confusing everybody else!. If I can't understand your argument it may be because I am far stupider than you are, but it might also mean that you are making no sense!. The former would not be intentional!.!.!.the latter just might be!.Www@QuestionHome@Com He's saying if he has a clear idea of something, it must be true of that thing!. He thinks that without god, nothing can exist, therefore god exists!. Brilliant huh!? lolWww@QuestionHome@Com All down the ages scholars trying to prove the existence of god have given these convoluted and essentially meaningless arguments!. I think you can safely ignore this nonsense!.Www@QuestionHome@Com It means that he had to placate the Catholic Church!. There were rather severe consequenses for doubting everything in his time and society!.Www@QuestionHome@Com God is everything and everything is God!Www@QuestionHome@Com |