Descartes’ Fifth Meditation: Proving God’s Existence
Fifth Meditation, Section 4: Based on that, I can develop a demonstrative proof of the existence of God. I find in me the idea of God, and I know clearly and distinctly present and eternal existence in the same way that I know the idea of a triangle necessarily has three angles that add up to two right angles. Although none of the above findings were true, the truth of God’s existence would be akin to mathematical truths.
At first, I think the essence of the idea of a triangle and God do not prove their existence extramental. Critics of the evil genius hypothesis remain valid if we take into account the criticisms set out above, and all rational truths, including logical-mathematical ones, may be false. But once I discover that God’s existence is part of their essence, they therefore cannot but necessarily exist. It is not worth arguing that conceiving of God as a perfect being is difficult, because I conceive clearly and distinctly, not as I can imagine that all figures with four sides can join the circle. For these reasons, after conceiving clearly and distinctly that existence is a perfection, I can conclude nothing other than His existence. God, conceived as a perfect being, is not faked or invented by my mind because I cannot conceive another idea whose essence includes existence, and because I cannot conceive of two or more gods like Him, and because I can change things other than God. If my spirit is not distracted by the images of sensible things, it recognizes that nothing is more clearly and distinctly conceived by my mind than the existence of God. Nothing is known more clearly before or than His existence.
Critical Analysis of the Ontological Argument
If one considers this truly demonstrative proof of the existence of God, Descartes relies on his third test, known as the ontological argument. It shows that the existence of God is a truth intuitively grasped by reason, and that truth is His very existence. We say that the only thing that intuitively captures reason is that a God—a perfect being who cannot have any lack of perfection—must exist. However, one cannot conclude that a being of this nature exists. It is necessary to itemize this discussion. Knowledge of everything else depends on Him, because without Him, I could only be sure of what my mind sees clearly and distinctly while conceived. Divine truth legitimizes memory and guarantees the certainty of rational truths clearly and distinctly conceived while I was asleep.
Criticism of the Divine Essence
The Cartesian deduction of God’s goodness and truth from His omniperfection is not admissible.
- We cannot pretend to know the divine nature of God by extrapolating our code of moral values. Moreover, if we do so, we limit divine freedom and omnipotence. What God wills is good, and what God can do is not knowable to us.
- The proposition that God’s goodness and truth is not refutable. It is a metaphysical proposition. Whatever happens, one can always continue to defend the goodness of God.
- But above all, for a legitimate reason, one cannot establish as irrefutable certainty God’s omniperfection from His goodness and truth.
For all that, even if we accept—which we do—the existence of the “cogito,” we would still not be able to overcome the psychological solipsism in which we would be trapped.