Descartes’ argument for God’s existence in the third meditation is more like the
ontological than the cosmological argument. Both arguments have valid implications
for god’s existence. Ontological being deductive reasoning and Cosmological being
reasoning. Ontological is the more reasonable explanation for god’s existence.
Deductive reasoning is sound and can lead to a true conclusion if the premises are
true. Adductive reasoning is like an educated guess. So the argument is based on a
guess and therefore is possibly invalid. It could lead to a true conclusion but an
invalid argument could be the premises. This is why the ontological argument holds
more water than the cosmological argument. My point is going to be proven through
logic. Both arguments yield the same conclusion but how they got there is an
entirely different story.
The ontological argument refers to Anselm chapter two, where he states “the
greatest thing we think of must exist” that thing being God. “If (God) did not (exist),
then whatever did exist in reality would be greater, and thus the thing (God) which
has already been proved to exist in my mind will not be greater than everything
else.” This is saying that what can be thought of can exist parallel in the physical
world and that because something that can exist in both worlds is therefore greater
than something that only exists in on set.
Anselm ch. 2 talks of a painter going through the process of painting his next
picture. There is a god because we can think. When the painter paints, he has the
painting in his head and thus creates the painting. God is nothing more than an
entity that exists in thought. It is something man cannot manifest into physical form.
Trying to explain him in physical form would prove the fool right because that
question cannot be answered. Yet the fact that we can think of a higher power must
mean that such a power can exist in physical form. Therefore something that both
has though and physical meaning is something greater than something that only
exists in though alone. “For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he
has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not
done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists
because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something
greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands
what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought.”
There is a physical existence for god because of thought. We claim that he exists
and that his land is the land of paradise and all things great. Because of this claim, all
other places are less great and without this claim all other places will seem great.
This creates a standard. Such as the island that no one can get to. Just because it is
remote and impossible to get to, just the claim that it exists and cannot be described
has significant meaning. The physical meaning of such a higher power is up for
interpretation of the individual. There is no universal standard for the physical
meaning of the higher power. This is the problem for some because they need to
have a standard of what something looks like and its definition. (Sophists.) The
higher power is there, but its manifestation is not clear.
As for the cosmological argument, this is a case for adductive reasoning. St.
Thomas Aquinas has five ways for God’s existence. These are the following ways he
argues for god’s existence. First is the argument of motion. This argument states
that whatever got in motion was put in motion by “a mover” that something had to
put all moving things into motion in the first place. That God is that mover.
“Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and
this everyone understands to be God.” The second argument is the nature of the
efficient cause. Saying that nothing can happen within itself. Because everything is
connected and that god is the first cause that gave way for nature’s existence. This
goes back to the mover, God is first. The third argument is possibility and necessity.
Saying that if at one time nothing were in existence, it would have been impossible
for anything to begin to exist. Therefore nothing would be in existence- that is
absurd. God is the possibility and is necessary for mankind. The fourth argument is
the gradation to be found in all things. There has to be a bar, rather, a set of
standards for man to gauge everything to obtain some kind of value. Such as heat,
the hottest of hot is fire. Therefore there must be the greatest of all goodness and
perfection. God is that standard and is the greatest. The fifth and final argument that
Aquinas has to offer is governance of the world. One lacks intelligence and cannot
achieve an end unless directed by one who has knowledge and intelligence. I think
of this as the teacher student theory. Therefore there has to be a being who is
directing nature to its end. These are the arguments for the cosmological side of
God’s existence.
The final argument for god’s existence is through Descartes third meditation. In
the first meditation, Descartes is uncertain of the existence of things in the physical
world. That is because Descartes wants a foundation to all things to base everything
off of. Because Descartes doesn’t want to believe everything, he abandoned his
senses. This is leading him to a greater truth because he is abandoning what he has
held true for so long and is freeing his mind to come to clearer conclusions and this
is what he does by the end of the first meditation. Abandon all his senses and starts
fresh with his mind. By the second meditation, Descartes has no sense and is
comfortable with the fact that his mind does exist. That intelligence and knowledge
is something he can hold on to and uses them to perceive the world rather than
using his senses, that the mind and body are opposite of one another. This all leads
up to the third meditation, which Descartes talks about the existence of God.
Descartes speaks of a causal reality principle that ideas could come from outside
him. That something can exist outside of his mind. He speaks of a natural light,
which is thought of as intuition. “Now it is manifest by the natural light that these
must be at least as much <reality> in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of
that cause.” This is raw thought occurring, this is the reason for God’s existence. “It
follows from this both that something cannot arise from nothing, and also that what
is more perfect – that is, contains in itself more reality- cannot arise from what is
less perfect.” God is something greater than what can be thought and therefore must
exist.
This leads me to my next point. The ontological argument is more like Descartes
third meditation than the cosmological argument. Descartes says it in plain text as
stated above. God exists in thought and in the physical world. The cosmological
argument provides many explanations but all lead to the same start. That god is first.
This is a turtles all the way down problem. Why is god first? Why him and not me?
With the birth of myself, I gave way for the world, as we know it. St. acquaints
doesn’t provide the basis for his argument, only that it is implied that there is a
logical meaning for god as the first for everything. This is a prime example of when
an adductive reasoning event has a false implication leading to a true conclusion.
The result is known but the premises can be made up to sound true. This is why
Acquaints has five ways. If he left it at one and done, he would clearly be false. The
logical conclusion of god is that he is in mind and reality. He is something that
cannot be manifested. He is totally abstract. The mind is true. Thought is something
that man can hold on to. That he is guided by intuition, judgment, emotions, and
intelligence. God is present in all this but he does not directly interfere with the
physical world. God is in the minds of us all and is the standard for everything
perfect.