tiny question on descartes/logic/philosophy

[foray]

Hi hi. I've been doing lots of wondering this week, so, apologies if you get foray-fatigue. I was reading up on Descartes today and his deductions on the existence of God. The proof for God's existence, according to him, goes briefly like this:

We are imperfect humans therefore it is impossible for us to conceive of a perfect God if a perfect God didn't exist. We can't conceive of anything that we are not a part of or anything that is not a part of this world. For example, if I told you to imagine an animal that doesn't exist, you'd most probably imagine just that, but your animal would have combined attributes of existing animals (a chicken with fish scales and a snout). You couldn't think of an animal that is truly out of this world.

Ok, this is only one (of two) of his deductions, but it's this point that I want to talk about.

I was just wondering, if it is true that humans can't imagine 'a thing out of nothing' without referring to things that already exist,

how did we come up with the square, since squares and straight lines do not exist in Nature? We are the only creatures who build things in squares (btw, many times, squares aren't smart architectural designs).


foray

 

[speedracer]

Ah yes...the old question, "did man create God?"

Personally, I believe that God exists, but that our conceptions of the all-perfect God are in fact an imperfect approximation to who God really is. Confusing enough for you?

 

[foray]

That is interesting; you've given me food for thought.

I have to ask, why do you think our perception of God as being perfect, imperfect?

foray (going to bed)

 

[speedracer]

Uh, what I meant is that I (being a Christian) believe in a perfect God, but that what we think of as "perfect" is not necessarily a completely accurate description of God. (I re-read what I wrote and realized it seemed much more controversial than I intended.)

For example, I believe that God is completely just and completely merciful, but anybody who says that they completely understand how God pulls this off is fooling himself.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-17-2002).]

 

[Anthony]

How can a concept or vision of God be considered perfect or imperfect? By whose judgement are we assesing such a notion?

If our minds, are indeed, imperfect then our perceptions will be imperfect, however, will God be imperfect as well? After all, we being imperfect would create imperfect beings such as robots who would naturally have faults, it is only natural to assume the same of God. So, using our logic of imperfect and perfect, God could be both rather convincingly, depending on which logic path we take.

Therefore, in order to assess what is imperfect and perfect, we MUST know what these are. Do we really know? Why ARE we considered imperfect, and by whom?

Ant.

 

[Not George Lucas]

Descartes's so-called proof of God is a classic example of one of the more common logical fallacies, namely begging the question (or circular argument). Basically, Descartes's argument can be boiled down to God exists becaue God says he exists. The conclusion is essentially the same as the premise.

Naturally, that doesn't work, and the argument is not sound (or valid).

------------------
It's the Bono Action Figure!

 

[foray]

Originally posted by Anthony:

Therefore, in order to assess what is imperfect and perfect, we MUST know what these are. Do we really know? Why ARE we considered imperfect, and by whom?

Ant.

Yeah, I knew it would come to this. I didn't think I could say what perfection (omniscience?) is since I'm clearly not qualified. However, I know what imperfection is.

foray

 

[foray]

Originally posted by Not George Lucas:
Basically, Descartes's argument can be boiled down to God exists becaue God says he exists. The conclusion is essentially the same as the premise.

Naturally, that doesn't work, and the argument is not sound (or valid).

I think you are referring to his *other* Deduction (of God's existence) which basically goes like this:

God is the greatest or most perfect being.
A being who exists is greater or more perfect than a being who does not exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Now, this argument for God makes more sense than the first one I brought up. I do not have a problem with this one, unless you folks do?

foray

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by foray:
I think you are referring to his *other* Deduction (of God's existence) which basically goes like this:

God is the greatest or most perfect being.
A being who exists is greater or more perfect than a being who does not exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Now, this argument for God makes more sense than the first one I brought up. I do not have a problem with this one, unless you folks do?

foray

I think this argument was due to Anselm. It actually runs like this:

1. It is greater to exist both in mind and in reality than in the mind.
2. God is the greatest possible being.
3. God exists in the mind.
4. If God did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

The problem is that this only proves that we must necessarily believe that God, as defined above, exists. Not too satisfactory.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-18-2002).]

 

[Truly]

Originally posted by speedracer:
I think this argument was due to Anselm. It actually runs like this:

1. It is greater to exist both in mind and in reality than in the mind.
2. God is the greatest possible being.
3. God exists in the mind.
4. If God did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

The problem is that this only proves that we must necessarily believe that God, as defined above, exists. Not too satisfactory.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-18-2002).]

It's funny that this theory should come up here. I'm going to study philosophy next year when I go to Uni, so I got this book out the library about it, and I was reading about this theory. This is how it was explained in the book -

"Imagine...the greatest, most perfect being possible. If the being you think of has every desirable attribute except that of existence, it is not the greatest or most perfect possible, because obviously a being that exists is both greater and more perfect than one that does not. Therefore the greatest, most perfect possible being must exist."

Now to me, there seems to be something wrong with this theory, but I just can't figure out what. It just doesn't seem right, although I can't find anything wrong with it. I've been thinking about it for a few days, and it just messes with my mind. Blarg!

Anyway, I don't like all these theories about God existing or not existing. Personally, I do believe He exists, but I don't need any theory to prove it to me. I just kind of 'know', if you know what I mean. I just have a kind of gut feeling that he does exist.

And then there's another theory, the cosmological argument according to my book. And that argues that something (the universe) can't come from nothing, so something (God) must have created it. But the weakness of this argument is that something must also have created God, and then something else must have created that, etc etc........

Now I agree with the first part of that argument, but not the second part. I don't think anyhting created God. but then how did He get there? I don't know.

I just have to give up thinking about things like this after a while - I get way too confused.

------------------
"They come in pints? I'm getting one!"

 

[UV2001]

Originally posted by foray:
God is the greatest or most perfect being.
A being who exists is greater or more perfect than a being who does not exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Now, this argument for God makes more sense than the first one I brought up. I do not have a problem with this one, unless you folks do?

foray

No this is the one I have heard about when I did Philosophy and this makes more sense. Was the square and straight line thing not to do with innate ideas? Just like a perfect circle. In real life no such thing exists however we can perceive one and that is and innate idea. I can't remember if Decarte believed in innate ideas or not though.

 

[UV2001]

Originally posted by speedracer:
I think this argument was due to Anselm. It actually runs like this:

1. It is greater to exist both in mind and in reality than in the mind.
2. God is the greatest possible being.
3. God exists in the mind.
4. If God did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

The problem is that this only proves that we must necessarily believe that God, as defined above, exists. Not too satisfactory.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 01-18-2002).]

It's a classic case of if you take the premises as FACT no fault can be found but if you don't believe the premises the who thing falls through.

 

[foray]

UV, are you talking about Plato's innate ideas? I don't think Descartes is associated with innate ideas usually, anyway.

Why do you say there is no perfect circle? A bubble is a perfect sphere because of the even pressure all round inside.

foray

 

[Lilly]

Descartes tried to use geometrical proofs to try to "solve" God. I always thought that was a curious way to say it.

------------------
It's the puppets that pull the strings.

 

[Not George Lucas]

And in doing so, he "invented" analytical geometry, making thousands of high school students hate him for years to come.

 

[foray]

Sorry, I came back to this thread to jot down some thoughts, and came up with new ones. Hope you guys haven't lost interest.

QUOTE]Originally posted by speedracer:
1. It is greater to exist both in mind and in reality than in the mind.
2. God is the greatest possible being.
3. God exists in the mind.
4. If God did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest possible being.
5. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
[/QUOTE]

speedracer, I think that whole argument falls apart because fact #1 isn't logically sound? Why must we ascertain the existence of a 'great' thing in reality and in the mind? How about something is greater if it exists in reality and isn't a figment of the mind? Isn't that how it's supposed to go?

 

[foray]

Originally posted by Truly:

Now I agree with the first part of that argument, but not the second part. I don't think anyhting created God. but then how did He get there? I don't know.

Truly, I think I know why God wasn't created by anything. It's because He stands outside of Time (which is also why he can 'see' our 'futures', for want of a better expression). According to a Mr. C.S. Lewis, to be in time means to undergo change. So, if God doesn't exist within Time (or maybe He has one foot in, the other foot out, I dunno), He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Well, if we think about it, God probably created/invented Time, so it could be possible that He does stand outside of it. To elaborate even further, maybe if we replace the word 'God' with 'Love', we could see how this Something can be eternal, for we all know that Love is unchanging throughout the ages.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Bleh......

foray



[This message has been edited by foray (edited 01-30-2002).]

 

[Angela Harlem]

How can something exist in the mind if it hasn't been seen? I think fors already said this. Does anyone have a tangible notion of God anyway?

This is about as circular as infinity and the meaning of the universe.

:crosseyedangie:

 

[UV2001]

Originally posted by foray:
UV, are you talking about Plato's innate ideas? I don't think Descartes is associated with innate ideas usually, anyway.

Why do you say there is no perfect circle? A bubble is a perfect sphere because of the even pressure all round inside.

foray

Just because it appears to be a perfect circle does not mean it is. The atoms will be moving and not all symetrical as the should be in a PERFECT circle.

 

[melon]

Well, humans do and can imagine something out of nothing. How would Descartes have explained away the rise of telephony? Computers? The internet? Television? Radio?

He can't either. Do any of these things, when invented (think back to the late 19th century with radio and the early 20th century with television) look or act remotely like anything that previously existed? For Descartes' time, his logic could have made sense, but time has since proved him wrong.

As for the "God" debate going on here, you can't prove God philosophically, because philosophy, innately, tries to justify on a scientific basis. Many have noblely tried this brand of Christian philosophy--St. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind--but with advances in scientific knowledge, a lot of this philosophy falls apart. I do believe in the existence of God, but I know I can't prove him. Science relies on the concrete and material world, even if that concrete portion is incredibly tiny (i.e., subatomic particles). Speaking of heaven and hell and God and souls has no concrete portion in our plane of reality. Just as televisions and the internet, etc. had no concrete portion in Descartes' reality. I guess I like to never say never, because who knows what the future might hold.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time