Decartes on Proving God's Existence

[mrwinkie1330]

For anyone familiar with Decartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy," I have some interesting thinking points.

A link to a synopsis and full version:
Synopsis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy
Full:http://filepedia.org/files/Descartes%27%20Meditations%20on%20First%20Philosophy.pdf

Throughout the Meditation, Descartes makes numerous claims to having "proven" gods existence.  These can easily be found on the Wikipedia article under Meditation 3.

Decartes makes a claim that as humans, we have free will.  The standard argument for the contradiction of an omnipotent and omniscient god and individual free will is well known.  It can however, easily be discounted by a theist by just saying that God's knowledge only lies within logic...

Thinking about Decartes' "proofs," however, simply allowed me to find another enormous contradiction that I have never heard talked about.  Descarte claims that God MUST exist because he could not have come up with such an idea.  The meditation continues to suggest that we cannot create ideas as individuals.  Every idea is either inspired by a previous experience or implanted by god.  Because of our inability to create any ideas, the idea of free will seems completely out of the question.  Sure, maybe we can choose between options, but we can never really have free will, because we can never create any ideas.

This is a very new idea that is still developing in my mind, so i thought i would post the schematics of it and see if discussion starts that will help me to refine it.

Discuss.

[LARA]

I think Descartes was wrong , therefore he is.


HAH.  HAH.  HAH.    

[Ihateyoumike]

I think Descartes was wrong , therefore he is.


HAH.  HAH.  HAH.    roflol
Nice.

[Hitsumei]

Descartes was brilliant, and his arguments are nuanced, and valid, but they require subtle assumptions that are often missed.

I agree with him that the imagination cannot fabricate from scratch, it can merely warp, bend, mix and match. I simply don't agree with him that a god is not an example of this. Absolute power is merely an extension of power. All of god's attributes are merely absolute extensions of existing attributes. Descartes does not describe god, god's ontology, or what spirit is like, or any thing else in a way that could not have been fabricated by the imagination.

This is one of the major reasons why I doubt alien abductions -- on a side note -- because the description of aliens are always anthropomorphic, and involve existing traits, and features that we know about from the animal kingdom.

Lets say that we had never heard of fur, but only had scales or some such, and nothing like fur. A description of fur would be convincing. I expect no less than the description of something completely new before I buy that they had any interaction with something completely new at all.

[Sophus]

This man is a failed philosopher.

[Hitsumei]

This man is a failed philosopher.

Only someone who knows nothing about philosophy or mathematics can say that. Descartes' contributions to philosophy and mathematics are massive. Many consider him to be the father of both philosophy, and modern mathematics.

Disagreeing with his ontological arguments for god hardly makes him a failure. He was one of the most brilliant men who have ever lived. I suppose that you must also consider Newton a failure because you disagree with him about alchemy?

[joeactor]

I agree with him that the imagination cannot fabricate from scratch, it can merely warp, bend, mix and match. I simply don't agree with him that a god is not an example of this. Absolute power is merely an extension of power. All of god's attributes are merely absolute extensions of existing attributes. Descartes does not describe god, god's ontology, or what spirit is like, or any thing else in a way that could not have been fabricated by the imagination.

I agree about god(s) being an extension of existing reality.

But I'm not so sure we can't imagine something from scratch.
Let's say you think of something completely new (concept, object, what-have-you).
In order to describe this to others, you need to use a language that is bound by what is known.
So, it's impossible to tell if the idea came from scratch (make sense?)

... and I leave you with this gem:
[youtube:1rqxpko6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMG20rBfkM8[/youtube:1rqxpko6]

JoeActor

[SteveS]

I expect no less than the description of something completely new before I buy that they had any interaction with something completely new at all.

This is my problem with a lot of religious "revelations" --- they don't seem to "reveal" anything really new.....

Hey joeactor - Python rules!

[Hitsumei]

I agree about god(s) being an extension of existing reality.

But I'm not so sure we can't imagine something from scratch.
Let's say you think of something completely new (concept, object, what-have-you).
In order to describe this to others, you need to use a language that is bound by what is known.
So, it's impossible to tell if the idea came from scratch (make sense?)

... and I leave you with this gem:
[youtube:17almq50]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMG20rBfkM8[/youtube:17almq50]

JoeActor

I agree that of course the description would be bound by existing concepts, but I think that a nuanced, and intelligent enough thinker could preset it in a way that would be persuasive enough to be considered something new.

Say you are a person from the first century, C.E. and you are suddenly transported to modern times for a day, in a major city. You play video games, you go to a theater, and you see computers, airplanes, and cars and such, and then you are transported back.

You may lack the words to accurately describe what you have seen to those that have not experienced anything like it, but I think that an intelligent enough person could put forward a description that would be persuasive, and convincing.

[Sophus]

Only someone who knows nothing about philosophy or mathematics can say that. Descartes' contributions to philosophy and mathematics are massive. Many consider him to be the father of both philosophy, and modern mathematics.

Disagreeing with his ontological arguments for god hardly makes him a failure. He was one of the most brilliant men who have ever lived. I suppose that you must also consider Newton a failure because you disagree with him about alchemy?

I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

[Hitsumei]

I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

They are all logically valid, nuanced, and brilliant. For centuries the worlds most brilliant people have been arguing about them, attempting to unravel them, and many intelligent people today still accept them as proofs of god.

By far the largest problem with all of the arguments of Descartes I think are false are false on evidential, and scientific grounds. In the early seventeen century, when they were devised, he was employing the best scientific knowledge of the day. Our ability to find fault with his ontological arguments for god today is hardly an act of intellect. It is because we posses knowledge and understanding that he did not.

Whatever flaws in his arguments that were pointed out were subtle indeed.

[Sophus]

I'm talking about in regard to this philosophy. His arguments are absolutely pathetic.

They are all logically valid, nuanced, and brilliant. For centuries the worlds most brilliant people have been arguing about them, attempting to unravel them, and many intelligent people today still accept them as proofs of god.

By far the largest problem with all of the arguments of Descartes I think are false are false on evidential, and scientific grounds. In the early seventeen century, when they were devised, he was employing the best scientific knowledge of the day. Our ability to find fault with his ontological arguments for god today is hardly an act of intellect. It is because we posses knowledge and understanding that he did not.

Whatever flaws in his arguments that were pointed out were subtle indeed.

They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

[Hitsumei]

They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

Of course not! Why unleash your Olympian intellect when you can just make wildly outlandish assertions?

[Sophus]

They're glaringly obvious and practically refute themselves. Need I even waste my time with it?

Of course not! Why unleash your Olympian intellect when you can just make wildly outlandish assertions?

It doesn't require a genius to see the flaws. The idea behind the statements is to provoke thought in yourself to help me save my breath. All too often do I waste time refuting irrational arguments and get nowhere because the person I'm debating with is close minded. So first, try showing some objectiveness to this man's arguments yourself. If you still can't see the flaws then I will point them out.

[Hitsumei]

It doesn't require a genius to see the flaws. The idea behind the statements is to provoke thought in yourself to help me save my breath. All too often do I waste time refuting irrational arguments and get nowhere because the person I'm debating with is close minded. So first, try showing some objectiveness to this man's arguments yourself. If you still can't see the flaws then I will point them out.

I don't accept his ontological arguments for god, so I'm hardly closed minded to seeing flaws. I already mentioned that I thought they were flawed, and why. That hardly makes them "absolutely pathetic". So your attempted redirect is misplaced.

Of course! "Yeah, I could totally rip that to shreds, but I chose not to..."