Decartes on Proving God's Existence

[McQ]

Hey Sophus and Hitsumei. Can't we all just get along?  :pop:

[Sophus]

Sorry Daddy. She started it! lol.

I don't usually get that way. Some people just know how to press buttons.

[mrwinkie1330]

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..."

Hitsumei, I think you and I are on board with a lot of the same ideas... But I think you may have read my original post incorrectly.  I was pointing out the logical progression that would lead to a contradiction.

Descartes argues:
(simply)
-I cannot create
-I have a perception of a "god"
therefore: god exists.
 
Later in the argument (don't know where off the top of my head) Descartes points out his belief in Free Will.

THEN-
This is my observation (sloppily presented here)
-If I can't create new Ideas
-That means that my ideas are influenced by my surroundings (warped, twisted, mixed, etc.)
-Decisions would classify as an idea, as "ideas" are the foundation of cognitive thought"
-I could not make my own decisions
therefore: I cannot have free will while simultaneously presenting the ontological argument.
THEREFORE: by Descartes logic, I cannot have free will if god exists.

I guess what I am saying here, is I realize the ontological argument is sound, albeit not persuasive. Also, Descartes was clearly a brilliant philosopher and logician.  His arguments laid the groundwork for nearly every field of philosophy.  While many might not agree with his beliefs, illogical arguments are difficult to spot.  In my original post, I was just trying to point out this cross-argument paradox that I happened to notice.   As I said, I haven't really gotten around to delving into thought about this, so I was just hoping to ignite some conversation about the ABOVE listed paradox... Not the ontological itself.

But thank you for your logical responses nonetheless... it's refreshing to see ANYWHERE on the internet.

[Tom62]

This reminds me somehow of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

My favorite bit is probably the argument that the Babel fish proves the non-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

[Phillysoul11]

Descartes was a genius, his first two meditations don't even touch the subject of god. His contributions to the fields of epistemology and mathematics were massive (his use of the epistemic closure principle was revolutionary) not to mention all his work on the mind body problem. Sure, he had some weak arguments, big deal. He was the greatest philosopher of the 17th century.

Locke can't touch his skepticism :]