Descartes' proof of God discussed

[Undesired Walrus]

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

=============

It is a very compelling argument, at least for me, and does give me a bums rush when I really think about it. I think it is by far the most solid argument for the existence of a non-biblical, but still present God.

Regardless, can this sense of perfection not simply be a fantasy that is attributed to our human nature of striving for perfection, when in fact no thing exists?

[the PC apeman]

I can't get past two. What does it mean for a being to be "perfect"? What might a perfect automobile or perfect computer be like? Is it the same for everyone?

[Undesired Walrus]

I think his point is that we all grasp a feeling of almighty perfection, which is not essentially attributed to a single physical object, but more to the internal feeling you get of 'God'. You also cannot imagine anything more.

[the PC apeman]

Well, not all of us. Almighty perfection strikes me along the lines of a married bachelor or reddish-green. (Did René also consider the least perfect being?)

[Undesired Walrus]

Also, didn't he also consider that we may all have pathways injected into our minds from a distant race of powerful aliens, which were the very definition of perfection?

[KingMerv00]

1. I exist (Axiom)

Granted.


2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)

What does it mean to be a perfect being?

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)

Says who?

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

Doesn't follow. I don't think you give humans enough credit.

5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)

I never understood this reasoning. If I imagine a "perfect polka-dotted elephant" it must therefore exist. EVERY "perfection" would exist. Perfect evil, the ultimate stench, the supreme turd...


6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)


See above.

[kinkymagic]

I believe the ontological arguement can be summed up as 'an existing god exists'.

[Evil Roy Slade]

It seems to me that 2 & 3 cannot coexist.

[Undesired Walrus]

I never understood this reasoning. If I imagine a "perfect polka-dotted elephant" it must therefore exist. EVERY "perfection" would exist. Perfect evil, the ultimate stench, the supreme turd...


[Devils Advocate] But isn't every perfection comprised into one being, this 'God' figure. The perfected laws of nature, perfect good, perfect everything[/Devils Advocate]

[Mashuna]

Step 5 was the part that Kant attacked. Existence is not a property that a thing possesses, but a statement about the world; that there is such a thing in it.

[KingMerv00]

[Devils Advocate] But isn't every perfection comprised into one being, this 'God' figure. The perfected laws of nature, perfect good, perfect everything[/Devils Advocate]

I don't understand what you mean.

[Jekyll]

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

You know, you could cross out 5 and 6 and the `proof' would still work. As a bonus, it would also be less wrong.

Personally, I disagree with axiom 3(or possibly unstated assumptions in axiom 2), as you only have an imperfect notion of what it means to be a perfect being, this notion need not arise from god.

[Undesired Walrus]

I don't understand what you mean.

I think his point is that we all 'sense' the highest we can, which is what he concieves as being God. I don't know about you, but I sense 'the something' which is the highest of the high, not really the perfection of hair or perfection of a good nose or something.

Doesn't mean I believe in it mind.

[Mashuna]

So apart from axioms 2,3 and 5, we're good with this argument?

[KingMerv00]

I think his point is that we all 'sense' the highest we can, which is what he concieves as being God. I don't know about you, but I sense 'the something' which is the highest of the high, not really the perfection of hair or perfection of a good nose or something.

Seems pretty arbitrary to me. He makes an argument but then but decides not to apply it because it would lead to absurd outcomes.

[brodski]

1. I exist (Axiom) so far so good.

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1) Do you? (did he?). I have yet to see a coherent explanation of what god could be. Until such an idea can be expressed, other than just saying "well, e's perfeck, inn'e?" we have no idea that such

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom) Until we have a workable definition of perfect and imperfect this statement is meaningless, and even if we do get those definitions, it's just a baseless assertion.

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3) we have no idea that this perfect concept even exists.

5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom) how much more perfect would a being be if it could be perfect even when not existing? needing existence inc order to be perfect would be a limitation and therefore an imperfection.

6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5) Well, by the same "logic", any perfect object i care to name "must" exist. This whole argument is nothing more that, "if we can dream it, it must be true".



Regardless, can this sense of perfection not simply be a fantasy that is attributed to our human nature of striving for perfection, when in fact no thing exists? bingo.
:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being.
What you have in mind, Rene, is an incoherent concept. As Brodski et al have said, define perfect being and why your notion of it should carry any power at all.


3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
Sure you can, especially if your notion is incoherent.

~~ Paul

[JoeEllison]

Descartes was sort of a moron... that has got to be the worst, least compelling argument short of "because my mommy said so!"

[Jekyll]

So apart from axioms 2,3 and 5, we're good with this argument?

Actually, now I read it again, I think 5) is fine in Walrus's form:
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist

I mean the second perfect is a bit redundant, but the statement is still true.

However didn't Descartes take this line of thought further, to say that because when he conceives of a perfect being, he conceives it existing and therefore it exists.

And then there is:

7) God would not let a devil deceive me, therefore my reasoning/experience is valid.

Which Walrus didn't mention.

[Apathia]

The perfect being is the ideal being.
It takes no revelation for the sentient imgination to generate ideals and the grandaddy of ideals. Unfortunately when this proclivity of absolute, unchecked rationalism is carried so far, it results in paradoxes and a disregard for emprical evidence. See Hume and Kant.

The argument breaks down there.

Arguing existance from an ideal seemed a slam dunk to Platonic and Cartesian Rationalism. But the weakness is that just because we can rationalize something, it doesn't follow that it exists.

The coin of the realm is now emperical evidence.

[tkingdoll]

It's just another example of putting Descarte before de horse.

[Apology]

I'm willing to object to #4. I don't see that the only source for the concept of a "perfect being" is the perfect being itself. We're capable of imagining all sorts of things that aren't true. The false premise is the concept that imperfect beings aren't capable of great imagination.

[boloboffin]

I'm really not trying to be a [rule10] here, but perfection really has as little to do with existence as possible.

A human brain (and many others) can comprehend the notion of "approaching a limit." Perfection is a function of human imagination and relies on human definitions. The universe has no ability to care about these things. The ontological argument is a mental illusion.

[rocketdodger]

I'm really not trying to be a [rule10] here, but perfection really has as little to do with existence as possible.


Yep, and this is where the ontological argument really goes wrong. Like Apathia mentioned, it has been taken apart because assuming "perfection" to include the trait of "existence" (which is arbitrary -- note that Descartes, as well as everyone else who buys into the ontological argument, never gives a good reason why) it leads to nonsense that is obviously untrue.

Was it Kant that came up with the "perfect island" version? Anyway... nobody can give a reason why existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, it is always taken as an unprovable axiom. Wrong... time to move on..

[blobru]

It's just another example of putting Descarte before de horse.

Descartes, Rene in dat horse!
(A person could never conceive of a "joke" that bad; therefore, GOD Satan exists.)

There are actually two arguments for God above: 5 & 6 (the ontological argument: perfection --> existence) sequel to 2 - 4 (the "neoplatonic"(?) [Mind to mind] argument: "God" --> God).

The ontological argument can be attacked many ways -- as in previous posts.
... Anyway... nobody can give a reason why existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, it is always taken as an unprovable axiom...

One might even argue that existence is inferior to idea. The idea of a perfect circle is by definition perfect, flexible, any size you like; any existent circle you 'draw' is one flawed, limited instance of the ideal.

The "neoplatonic" argument as stated contradicts itself:
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)

Because perfect > imperfect. To know the perfect being is better than the imperfect being, to be able to compare, I must understand "better". If I understand "better", I understand "best" (that than which nothing is better). But "best" = "perfect". And by prop. 1:
1. I exist (Axiom)

Existing, I know "being". Since I understand "being" and "perfect", obviously I can think up the notion of a perfect being... contradicting 3.

Unless of course: :idea: :pigsfly:rainbow: -- etc, etc. :o

[Mashuna]

Yep, and this is where the ontological argument really goes wrong. Like Apathia mentioned, it has been taken apart because assuming "perfection" to include the trait of "existence" (which is arbitrary -- note that Descartes, as well as everyone else who buys into the ontological argument, never gives a good reason why) it leads to nonsense that is obviously untrue.

Was it Kant that came up with the "perfect island" version? Anyway... nobody can give a reason why existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, it is always taken as an unprovable axiom. Wrong... time to move on..

I think it was Gaunilo who came up with the 'perfect island', Kant was the one who pointed out existence was not a trait.

[Puppycow]

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

=============

It is a very compelling argument, at least for me, and does give me a bums rush when I really think about it. I think it is by far the most solid argument for the existence of a non-biblical, but still present God.

Regardless, can this sense of perfection not simply be a fantasy that is attributed to our human nature of striving for perfection, when in fact no thing exists?

Really? I find it completely unconvincing. Where to begin? First of all, can you really conceive of a "perfect" being? And what exactly does "perfect" mean in this sense. Why is existence necessary for perfection? How many "perfect" beings could there be? If the answer is one, then to conceive of it, you would have to be able to describe every aspect and every detail of it. If more than one, does that mean they all exist?

[Puppycow]

[devil's advocate]Let me offer up what to my mind would be a more compelling argument than Descartes. (Doesn't amount to a proof, however, only a suggestion.)
1) The Universe exists; it is huge; and conditions are such that permit the evolution of life.
2) Evidence suggests that the universe began with a Big Bang.
3) It's hard to imagine a universe spontaneously popping into existence without some primary cause.
4) Therefore, maybe that primary cause was a God?
[/devil's advocate]
I think that is the best you can do without a leap of faith or flawed logic or wishful thinking. No proof, just a possibility.

[Beerina]

He seems to throw in the needless middle-man of "an imperfect being couldn't have thought up the idea of a perfect being" as an extra, cluttering layer to this argument.

In any case, the flaw is, as stated, in the presumption that an existing thing is better, perfect-wise, than a non-existing thing. Worse, there's like this meta-imagination going on here where we're imagining a world where a perfect-and-therefore-existing thing exists, and leaving off the "or maybe not".

It's perfectly fine to imagine a thing-that-must-exist, as illogical as that may sound.

Imagine a thing that cannot be labeled. Call it "x".

Oops.

[ImaginalDisc]

1. I stink (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect stinky being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect stinky thing, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect stinky being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfectly stinky being must have originated from the perfectly stinky being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfectly stinky being would not be perfectly stinky if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfectly stinky being must exist (from 4 & 5)

[HeavyAaron]

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

Doesn't follow. I don't think you give humans enough credit.

Yes, it does follow. Your reason stems from a rejection of:

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)

And you are well within your rights to reject an axiom, of course. But 4. does directly follow from 2 & 3. To state that it doesn't follow is to say that given 2 & 3 does not result in 4. But given 3. as true #4. DOES give humans enough credit.

Aaron

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, it does follow.
How do you figure? Let's review:

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

Or, how about:

4'. Therefore the notion of a perfect being might have been injected into my mind by a garden hose or random quantum fluctuations.

Now, perhaps you will argue that everything is imperfect except for the perfect being, and random fluctuations can't possibly result in the notion of a perfect being, so the source of the notion must be the perfect being. Then I will argue:

3.1. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot hold the notion of a perfect being perfectly correctly in his mind (reasonable axiom if 3 is)

3.2. Therefore, my notion of a perfect being may be fatally flawed.

(Note that I am assuming that the concept of a perfect being is even coherent.)

~~ Paul

[linusrichard]

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)


Ridiculous.

5 is both nonsensical and unnecessary. I think we have to accept 1 (although it's probably also unnecessary), and if I'm being generous, I can accept that 4 follows from 2 and 3, and I think 6 follows, more or less, from 4 (without 5). The problem is, you can't get 6 without 4, and you can't get 4 without 2 and 3, and I can't see any reason to accept 2 and 3.

As to 2: How do you know you have in your mind the notion of a perfect being? Maybe, being an imperfect being, you have in your mind your idea of the notion of a perfect being, but it is not really the notion of a perfect being. It is only one of your imperfections that you mistakenly believe that the imperfect being you are imagining is perfect.

As to 3: How do you know that an imperfect being can't come up with the notion of a perfect being? What reason can you give for accepting this as an axiom?

[Madalch]

It is a very compelling argument, at least for me, and does give me a bums rush when I really think about it. I think it is by far the most solid argument for the existence of a non-biblical, but still present God.
I cannot imagine how anyone can consider it compelling. Axion 3 is not a logical statement at all.

[tsg]

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)

I don't think you do, Rene (assuming it's really his argument). I think you have thought up some mystical magical man that addresses some questions you want answered and simply called it perfect without specifying the characteristics that make it so. In which case you simply have an abstract imagined concept.

But, for the sake of argument, define "god". "A perfect being" doesn't count.

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

Not necessarily. 3 can be true (it need not be, though) and 4 false if the being of which you have a notion is not, in fact, perfect.

[The_Animus]

Step 3 is the flaw in my book.

[bruto]

Defining a thing is not the same as being able truly to conceive it. To say "I think there's something perfect out there" does not require much, except the definition of perfection, and a word like "perfection" can be coined and defined even if it is impossible or even self-contradictory. Can you actually conceive of a perfect being without running into contradiction or impossibility? I don't think so, and if our notion of perfection is itself imperfect, then step two is false even though step three may be true.

[tsg]

I think we've pretty much debunked steps 2-6.

As for 1, I respond "not anymore".

[politas]

The notion that perfection cannot come from imperfection is nonsense.

Take three imperfectly flat surfaces, A, B and C.

Add abrasive powder to surface A and grind against surface B until smooth.
Add abrasive powder to surface B and grind against surface C until smooth.
Add abrasive powder to surface C and grind against surface A until smooth.

Continue until all three surfaces are smooth against each other without further grinding.

You now have three perfectly flat surfaces, created from imperfectly flat surfaces by an imperfect person using imperfect tools.

Sorry Descartes, you're a tool.

[brodski]

Sorry Descartes, you're a tool.

A perfect tool?

[brodski]

So why do skeptics call fundamentalists morons all the time?

What does your question have to do with the text you quoted? Or with this thread?

[JetLeg]

Apologize.

[flimflam_machine]

Step 3 is the flaw in my book.

Seconded. I don't follow this at all, I think that us imperfect humans have no problem at all with the concept of perfection. It may be true that we can't actually envisage what a perfect being would look like/feel/do etc., since it is beyond the reach of an imperfect brain. But I don't think that it is beyond the wit of man to come up with the simple notion of a perfect being.

[Foster Zygote]

Seconded. I don't follow this at all, I think that us imperfect humans have no problem at all with the concept of perfection. It may be true that we can't actually envisage what a perfect being would look like/feel/do etc., since it is beyond the reach of an imperfect brain. But I don't think that it is beyond the wit of man to come up with the simple notion of a perfect being.

Thirded. And defining something as perfect is a far cry from actually being able to comprehend "perfection". I think "perfect" is similar to 'infinite" in this respect. We can define something as infinite but that doesn't mean infinity fits neatly into our heads.

[Foster Zygote]

Apologize.

To whom is this directed, and for what reason?

[Phaedrus74]

Axiom 3 should probably be read as meaning that even though one can meaningfully apply the predicate "perfect" to the subject "being" grasping what this would entail is beyond our capacities.

Nevertheless, this proof (or any other they thought up) doesn't work. Fortunately Descartes also used his time constructively, laying the foundations for the scientific revolution.

Three cheers for Descartes!!

[JetLeg]

To whom is this directed, and for what reason?

Brodsky. I posted something irrelevant.

[Foster Zygote]

Brodsky. I posted something irrelevant.

So you meant "apologies"?

[Foster Zygote]

Axiom 3 should probably be read as meaning that even though one can meaningfully apply the predicate "perfect" to the subject "being" grasping what this would entail is beyond our capacities.

Nevertheless, this proof (or any other they thought up) doesn't work. Fortunately Descartes also used his time constructively, laying the foundations for the scientific revolution.

Three cheers for Descartes!!

I agree. With modern hindsight we can see that Descartes made a lot of mistakes. But he was a product of his time. We should be grateful to him for the contributions to science that he did lay down.

[voidx]

Sounds like a bunch of circular garbage to me.

You being an imperfect being can only have a "notion" of a perfect being in your mind, whatever the hell that means. The notion itself cannot be perfect, and so in fact is likely false and imperfect. Which makes rule 4 unnecessary.

And since the entire exercise, and all the other seemingly arbitrary axiom's are meant to create a home for rule 4, then the whole thing is a waste of time.

How about this.

1) Any being can be under the delusion or impression that they are a perfect being.
2) Imperfectness of Being can only be determined from the viewpoint of a Perfect Being.
3) Therefore a Perfect Being must get confirmation of its non-delusional Perfectness from another Perfect Being.
4) The confirming Perfect Being's perfectness must also be confirmed by another non-delusional Perfect Being.
5) And so on into a never-ending loop, hence no Perfect Beings at all.
6) Therefore confirming that with arbitrary axioms in a make believe scenario, you can make up pretty much anything you want.

[Irony]

I wish I could find this comic I saw about this. One guy told this proof to the other, and the other imagined God as a perfect jelly donut, which then miraculously appeared in front of him.

So, if this proof is true then where is my perfect jelly donut?:(

[Foster Zygote]

I wish I could find this comic I saw about this. One guy told this proof to the other, and the other imagined God as a perfect jelly donut, which then miraculously appeared in front of him.

So, if this proof is true then where is my perfect jelly donut?:(

Ah, but you have doubt. If you had true faith you could conjure all the perfect donuts you could eat.

[JoeEllison]

One of the problems with this illogical nonsense from Descartes is the reality of independent existence. Things exist, or don't, regardless of our conception of them. Germs existed before the invention of the microscope, and unicorns continue to lack existence despite the constant depiction of them in bad fantasy fiction. The fact that we can say "there must be something perfect" doesn't mean it must exist.

And that doesn't even deal with the definitional problems with the word "perfect".

[Yoink]

One of the real oddities in Descartes proof of God is that it runs smack bang into a central tenet of Christian theology without apparently recognizing that it does: the fundamental inconceivability of God.

For centuries Christian thinkers before (and, indeed, after) Descartes had insisted upon the essential incomprehensibility of God's perfection (starting with Paul: now through a glass darkly; then face-to-face etc.). Most of Dante's Paradiso is about drumming into our heads that everything that baffles us about God's omniscience and omnipotence (e.g.--how can God not be the author of all the evil in the world if he's both omnis. and omnip. etc. etc.) is necessarily and immutably beyond the comprehension of mortal beings and will only be made clear after we die.

What could Descartes possibly have meant, then, by blithely saying "well, we have a concept of a perfect being--where did that come from"? Not only does it seem clear to me that no one in fact does have such a concept, but Descartes is simply giving the back of his hand to centuries of orthodox Christian theology that had insisted that we cannot have such a concept.

[Yoink]

One of the problems with this illogical nonsense from Descartes is the reality of independent existence. Things exist, or don't, regardless of our conception of them. Germs existed before the invention of the microscope, and unicorns continue to lack existence despite the constant depiction of them in bad fantasy fiction. The fact that we can say "there must be something perfect" doesn't mean it must exist.

And that doesn't even deal with the definitional problems with the word "perfect".

To be fair to Descartes, he does address this point. He argues that something like a unicorn is just built up out of other things that we have in fact experienced. That is, we take the concept of "horse" and add the concept of "horn" and hey presto, we have unicorn. His claim is that there is simply nothing in our experience that could have given us the concept of "a perfect being."

The argument fails, of course--just more proof of the damage that religion can do to even the most brilliant minds--but it isn't quite so silly as "if I can imagine it, it must be real."

[JoeEllison]

To be fair to Descartes, he does address this point. He argues that something like a unicorn is just built up out of other things that we have in fact experienced. That is, we take the concept of "horse" and add the concept of "horn" and hey presto, we have unicorn. His claim is that there is simply nothing in our experience that could have given us the concept of "a perfect being."

The argument fails, of course--just more proof of the damage that religion can do to even the most brilliant minds--but it isn't quite so silly as "if I can imagine it, it must be real."

Well, yeah, it IS that silly, even if "unicorn" isn't the best example. :D

[Yoink]

Well, yeah, it IS that silly, even if "unicorn" isn't the best example. :D

But surely it's an interesting question: can we imagine something that is entirely out of our experience? Descartes explicitly discounts chimeras of various kinds. Yes we can imagine a goat with the body of a fish or a man who can fly etc. etc. But can we imagine something which is not simply a transformation or recombination of things we have in fact experienced?

I think the answer to that question is not immediately obvious. Where I think Descartes fails is that I've never heard a coherent account of God's supposed "perfection." When people talk about omnipotence they just think "very very powerful" (which is why they can imagine such absurdities as an omnipotent and omniscient being getting angry or frustrated).

But this doesn't mean that Descartes isn't right in principle that there could be things we could conceive which would by the mere fact of our being able to conceive them would argue for knowledge beyond the ordinary realm of experience (I'm not saying that he is right--just that it isn't self-evidently obvious that he isn't).

[bruto]

But surely it's an interesting question: can we imagine something that is entirely out of our experience? Descartes explicitly discounts chimeras of various kinds. Yes we can imagine a goat with the body of a fish or a man who can fly etc. etc. But can we imagine something which is not simply a transformation or recombination of things we have in fact experienced?

I think the answer to that question is not immediately obvious. Where I think Descartes fails is that I've never heard a coherent account of God's supposed "perfection." When people talk about omnipotence they just think "very very powerful" (which is why they can imagine such absurdities as an omnipotent and omniscient being getting angry or frustrated).

But this doesn't mean that Descartes isn't right in principle that there could be things we could conceive which would by the mere fact of our being able to conceive them would argue for knowledge beyond the ordinary realm of experience (I'm not saying that he is right--just that it isn't self-evidently obvious that he isn't).

Why can't we imagine something out of our experience? All we need to do is to use ideas that are within our experience, and play with them. We need not see perfection as being completely out of our experience. Degrees of perfection exist in various things. We can certainly conceive of the idea of perfection and completeness in small things and limited applications. Similarly, we know what knowledge and power are, so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine someone or something with perfect and complete knowledge and power. It's just an application of extreme degree to ideas that we see exemplified in lesser degree all the time. The concept of a perfect being is no less a construct than a unicorn.

[Michael C]

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect Bigfoot (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect Bigfoot (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect Bigfoot himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect Bigfoot would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect Bigfoot must exist (from 4 & 5)

[m_huber]

I had to pull out my old philosophy notes on this one!

Descartes used his theorem of a perfect God existing to great ends. He started with the notion that he had no idea what could exist, since senses could be deceiving. However, he knew that he existed, because he was capable of thinking (I think, therefore I am). He then reasoned that since he had the notion of God, God must also exist, vis-a-vis the argument formerly stated. Since a perfect God exists, and perfection implies goodness, then the things God reveals are perfect and good. Example: Mathematics. The Cartesian Coordinate system derived from accepting this proof. DesCartes was nuts about some things, but he set the stage for many a great scientist after him, and much of what is taught at basic levels can be attributed to DesCartes.

He was also attacked on exactly the same points that have been mentioned here. Gaunilo wrote a reply to Anselm (who basically had the exact same God argument) in which he asks if there is a perfect island.

Anselm's reply:
"Hence, if any one says that he conceives this being not to exist, I say that at the time when he conceives of this either he conceives of a being than which a greater is inconceivable, or he does not conceive at all. If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the non-existence of that of which he does not conceive. But if he does conceive, he certainly conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist. For if it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning and an end. But this is impossible.
He, then, who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot be even conceived not to exist; but he who conceives of this being does not conceive that it does not exist; else he conceives what is inconceivable. The non-existence, then, of that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable."

Sometimes, it's more damaging to look up the argument for than the argument against.

[bruto]

9083

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

6. Therefore a perfect Bigfoot must exist (from 4 & 5)
And thus, my friends, we learn that Bigfoot is god.

~~ Paul

[Yoink]

Why can't we imagine something out of our experience? All we need to do is to use ideas that are within our experience, and play with them.

Those would be the chimeras that Descartes explicitly accounts for. If we use things in our experience and play with them then we're not, ex hypothesi, thinking something radically external to our experience.

The concept of a perfect being is no less a construct than a unicorn.

I actually doubt that we can conceive of a "perfect being." All we do is throw a bunch of negations at ideas we do have "not-dying, not-bounded" etc. I've never heard any account of God that struck me as "perfect" AND internally consistent. (God as demon, of course, is perfectly consistent, but also clearly a chimera).

But regardless, my claim wasn't that Descartes was right that the idea of a perfect being is in fact an example of an idea we could not have derived from experience--it was solely that it is not self-evidently false to state that there could be such things as concepts that cannot be derived from (available) experience.

[bruto]

Those would be the chimeras that Descartes explicitly accounts for. If we use things in our experience and play with them then we're not, ex hypothesi, thinking something radically external to our experience.And my point is simply that there is no reason to believe that the concept of perfection or a perfect being is actually external to our experience.



I actually doubt that we can conceive of a "perfect being." All we do is throw a bunch of negations at ideas we do have "not-dying, not-bounded" etc. I've never heard any account of God that struck me as "perfect" AND internally consistent. (God as demon, of course, is perfectly consistent, but also clearly a chimera).That has been my contention all along (I think), when I say a thing can be defined, without actually being conceived.

But regardless, my claim wasn't that Descartes was right that the idea of a perfect being is in fact an example of an idea we could not have derived from experience--it was solely that it is not self-evidently false to state that there could be such things as concepts that cannot be derived from (available) experience. True enough, but that does not provide a necessary explanation for what they do derive from. It does not demolish the possibility that such concepts might be entirely false, insane or nonsensical, does it?

[Yoink]

Bruto--re-read my posts in this thread and you'll see that the position you're arguing against isn't the position I'm trying to advance. I'm not defending Descartes's proof of God, which I find to be hopelessly inadequate.

[FreakBoy]

A perfect tool?

A perfectly smooth tool.

[bruto]

Bruto--re-read my posts in this thread and you'll see that the position you're arguing against isn't the position I'm trying to advance. I'm not defending Descartes's proof of God, which I find to be hopelessly inadequate.I realize that. I think we're in essential agreement, except for quibbles about which part of the proof to pick on first. This kind of stuff brings out the quibbler in me. I'll stop now.

[Yoink]

I realize that. I think we're in essential agreement, except for quibbles about which part of the proof to pick on first. This kind of stuff brings out the quibbler in me. I'll stop now.

Hey, this board would grind to halt if we outlawed quibbling. :)

Just quibble with something I'm actually arguing, rather than with something I'm not and I'll be happy to join in the quibble-fest.

[Yoink]

Let me venture an example of what might possibly qualify as a concept that could not be derived from experience:

Imagine a blind person asks you "does the color of my shirt match the color of my trousers?" It seems fair (though debateable) to argue that the blind person could not possibly have derived the concept of "color" simply by recombining and altering his own experience. The fact that he can ask you that question (can entertain the concept on which the question is based) is itself evidence that he has received instruction by other sighted people.

Could there, then, be concepts--like "color" for the blind person--which the mere fact of our being able to think them are evidence for knowledge of something outside our normal experience? (Descartes would argue that "God" was such a concept, but I would argue that it is all too easy to see how we extend from "very powerful" to "more powerful than anything else"--which is all we really mean by omnipotent; once again, my point is not that Descartes' proof of the existence of God is valid, just that one of the steps in it might be interestingly suggestive.)

There are, of course, a number of ways in which you might critique my example. Does the blind person actually have a "concept" of color, or have they just been trained to ask certain questions which they know to be meaningful for others, but which contain no clear idea for themselves? I don't know; I suspect that a good answer to that question would throw considerable doubt (of a broadly Wittgensteinian kind) upon what we think we mean when we say "I have a clear concept of X." Still, I think it's a suggestive example.