Also like Descartes, he thinks of the self as a thing thatthinks.

However, before doing this, he thinks it better to examine the question of the existence of God.

It all comes down to the question of God’s existence.

After all, antiquity must have been right in thinking that reasonable self-direction must rest on having a determinate character and knowing what it is, and that only the truth about God and happiness, if we somehow found it, could make us free. But the truth is not to be found by guessing at it, as religious prophets and men of genius have done, and then damning every one who does not agree. Human nature, for all its substantial fixity, is a living thing with many varieties and variations. All diversity of opinion is therefore not founded on ignorance ; it may express a legitimate change of habit or interest. The classic and Christian synthesis from which we have broken loose was certainly premature, even if the only issue of our liberal experiments should be to lead us back to some such equilibrium. Let us hope at least that the new morality, when it comes, may be more broadly based than the old on knowledge of the world, not so absolute, not so meticulous, and not chanted so much in the monotone of an abstracted sage.

From examination of this idea, it follows, says Descartes, that God exists.

Father of this method is Renee Descartes.

Fermat and Descartes did work in physics and independently discoveredthe (trigonometric) law of refraction,but Fermat gave the correct explanation, and used itremarkably to anticipate the Principle of Least Actionlater enunciated by Maupertuis (though Maupertuishimself, like Descartes, had an incorrect explanation of refraction).

His argument firstly involves the acknowledgement of such an idea within ourselves.

We are ignoring [in this argument] that thought goes on in an animal, and that the terms of it are signs for facts surrounding that animal or existing within his body, and that it is only in this capacity, as signs and not as dialectical terms, that essences can convey knowledge.

In fact,I believe there are many points of agreement between Locke and Descartes.

He was first to prove the existence of transcendental numbers.

Many people are bred into religion, or borne into a set of ideas about a particular infinite being. The interesting problem with most types of faith in this manner is that the scripture that has been deemed to come from your god is also the proof that God exists. This is the type of circular definition that Descartes is trying to avoid at all costs. Basically, it s like using a word in it s own definition, or the definition of an apple is an apple. The argument begins to get a little bit ambiguous when he begins discussing the uncertainty of his beliefs. He is, as he claims, as certain of the idea of the sun, the moon, the earth, even his own rational though, as he is certain of God s existence.

Descartes' Proof of God's Existence - The existence of ..

In the "Principles of Philosophy," Descartes puts forward the example of a person who has the idea of a highly sophisticated and intricate machine; all the intricacy that is contained in the idea that the person has must be reflected in the source of that idea, whether it be a skilled designer, or the imagination of the person themselves.
Taking these three premises, Descartes arrives at the existence of God as follows: as I have an idea of a perfect being, it must contain in reality all the features that are contained merely objectively in my idea.

Descartes’ Proof Of The Existence ..

The most troubling part of the entire section is the understanding of formal and objective reality. Remember his theory that existence is perfection. To understand that to have an idea is to exist is one case, but take for instance the man whom can think, just as someone thinks of God, of a being so absolutely imperfect, clearly and distinctly, that it does not exist. However, according to Descartes, since it has an objective reality, it must follow that it also must have a formal reality as well. Clearly, this is an impossibility which I have yet to ascertain to the fullest degree.

we shall look upon Rene Descartes’ theory on the existence of God

Ayn Rand s The Fountainhead creates within it a hero who is so independent that he ceases to exist within the public eye however, he never ceases to exist, as he ends up clearly being dependant on his own belief of something greater. Whether Rand shared Descartes view on the existence of God is uncertain, however can be applied to the entire argument. If one is without an idea to back him up, one ceases to exist but who created the idea of the being in the first place? And further, who created and implanted within all beings the existence of a higher, more defined, and more perfect being? It is through this logic that Descartes attempts, rather unsuccessfully in my mind, to prove that the existence of God is not a rare leap of faith but rather a certainty in it s own perfect, unquestionable and ultimately non-comprehensible way. He was certainly arrogant, though, in his thoughts and writings, though, ascribing characteristics to a being that he himself will never understand fully. In my mind, Descartes exceeded in many parts of his argument, but failed to prove from a logical standpoint the existence of a higher being. We, as humans, will take to heart his ideals, but will continue to work on leaps of faith and the prescribed scriptures and circular definitions of our own religions.