Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

In the trademark argument, Descartes tries to prove that God exists by using the very idea of God. He says that the idea of God is like a stamp, or a trademark that he exists.

It hangs on the belief that each and every idea must have a source.

These sources include:

  • adventitious - grasped by experience and not mind
  • fictitious - create by the mind
  • innate ideas - born with them

Descartes then argued where the source of our innate ideas come from?

GOD

Descartes' argument for the existence of God

Descartes came to the conclusion that we can't doubt what we have clear and distinct ideas about, unless we are being deceived. Therefore in order to remove this fear Descartes argued for the existence of God. This is because God is omnibenevolent meaning he would not deceive us.

In order to prove this he uses two arguments: The Trademark and the Ontological.

Trademark argument

The Ontological argument

The Theory

Descartes argued if we didn't believe in God, we couldn't explain our existence. If God didn't create us then:

  • I created my self
  • Was passed on by my parents
  • Was made by lesser Gods or other beings

However Descartes argued that if I created myself then I would have made myself perfect which I am not. He argued we couldn't have had our existence passed on from parents as that only pushes the problem back (who made them...). We can't have been created by a team of lesser Gods, as we have an idea of God as a prefect unity and therefore we have to be have created by God.

Second Version of the Trademark argument

Descartes replies to his own objections saying there is a relationship between the mountain and valley, not between mountain and existence. IF a mountain existed, so would a valley. It is part of the definition of a mountain. Just like part of the definition of God is existence therefore he must exist.

Descartes makes it clear that just by thinking something doesn't mean it has to exist. He does this by raising his own objection:

  • Just because if i conceive of a mountain, I must also conceive of a valley, it does not mean that a mountain must exist. So just because I when i conceive of God with existence it doesn't mean he exists.

Further

The ontological argument is very simple and short. It goes as follows.

  • 1) God is the sum of all perfections
  • 2) This includes existence. God has perfect existence
  • God necessarily exists.

Because I have clear and distinct ideas!

Descartes argued that a cause must have at least of more reality than it's effect.

For example, a substance is something which can exist independently, a property is an accident and the mode is a determination of the property. For instance a book is a substance, colour is the property and red is the mode. The substance has more reality than the property as the property relies on the existence of the substance. Similarly the mode relied on the existence of the property.

Further more substances can have less reality than other substances. For example a hand has less reality than an arm or a whole human body.

Descartes then argued that the causes of ideas must have at least as much reality as the effect. (How we get the idea must be greater than the idea)

He also believed that because we are thinking things, we have considerable reality and therefore could have caused most ideas.

However he believed the idea of God to be more real than us.

This is because he is thought to have perfect reality, which is more than we have.

This means the only cause of God is a perfect being. This is God and therefore God exists.

Problems

  • Sciences has shown us it may be possible for something to come from nothing and therefore suggests that the relationship between cause and effect isn't what Descartes believed it to be. Similarly Hume argued it isn't an analytic truth that effects have to come from a cause.
  • Critics argue that while is is generally the case that the cause has to be greater than the effect, this may not apply to ideas. Whilst it is obvious we couldn't create God, because he is more real than us, it is not the case we couldn't create the idea.
  • Because I am imperfect and finite i could be the cause of the ideas 'non-imperfect' and 'non-finite', therefore it appears that we can be the cause of God just be thinking away limitations.
  • Descartes replies that we can't use negative ideas to prove God. He has positive ideas of infinite and perfect. He is not just the absence of limits, but something which is unable to have limits.
  • The idea of something having more reality is absurd.
  • Firstly it is widely accepted that existence isn't a property. If I asked someone to describe someone, they would never say 'Green eyes, black hair, they exist.'
  • The idea that if we were to describe our 'perfect island' it would be the sum of all perfections meaning it too necessarily existed.
  • Because God is still highly debated it suggests it is not an analytic truth and it is not as simple as the ontological argument makes it out.

The last argument is the most threatening. I shall explain it on the last slide.

The Cartesian Circle

In order to prove that God exists we must have a clear and distinct idea of God. However earlier in the meditations Descartes argued that we can only trust our ideas if God exists as he is no deceiver (That's why he is trying to prove God exists). This leads us in a circle and suggests that we can't prove God exists, at least not using clear and distinct ideas.

How do I know God exists?

How do I know I can trust my clear and distinct ideas?

Degree of Reality

Because God exists

Objections

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi