Descartes’ First Argument of God’s Existence in Third Mediation

In this paper, I would like to critically discuss paragraph 24 in Descartes terzetto meditation. First of all, I would like to give an explanation of the design that Descartes criticizes in this paragraph. Secondly, I will evaluate Descartes response to this proffer. Finally, I will give considerations that aliment the bounded first and infinite first pictures and analyze which picture I think is to a greater extent plausible. Firstly, I want to give the background of the proposal that Descartes criticizes in paragraph 24. In Third Meditation, Descartes argues the existence of beau ideal for the first time.His end is known as the cognitive causal principle and goes like this 1) The cause of an topic must contain formally (or eminently) as much worldly concern as the vagary contains objectively. 2) My idea of graven image contains infinite reality objectively. 3) My idea of God is caused by something that contains infinite (unlimited) reality, eminently or formally. 4) Onl y God has unlimited reality. 5) Therefore, God exists. In this principle, Descartes means that the reality that exists in the world has formal reality, and the reality that exists in our mind as an idea has objectively reality.In collection for an idea to contain objective reality, it has to have a cause that contains as much or more reality formally. For example, we have an idea of a chair objectively, and chair that exists in the world has to contain as much or more formal reality to cause my idea of a chair. In the case of Gods existence, Descartes main idea of his argument is that we can understand God exists through our idea of God, because our idea of God contains infinite objective reality that is caused by God who has infinite formal reality.Descartes argument is striking and controversial. By looking at this argument on the surface, it is natural to question wherefore we should think the cause of an idea has to have as much reality as the idea organism caused, and why o ur idea of God has infinite objective reality. Descartes himself may expect many criticisms to his argument, so here is how Descartes advances his argument through criticizing this proposal in paragraph 24. If this proposal is not addressed and criticized, it will cause a problem for his first argument of the existence of God.This proposal is that, the acquisition of our idea of God simply begins with our knowledge of finite things. When we sleep with finite things, we do in finite things and remove the limits of finite things, then we can get an idea of the infinite. Our idea of God is merely how we do it ourselves as finite and limited, thus we come up with an imagination that there is an infinite macrocosm who is limitless, and then we have the idea of God. If this proposal is true, Descartes first argument of the existence of God will become unsound, because our idea of God is simply our imagination that has no objective reality.Descartes response to this proposal points o ut we do not come up with this idea of an infinite universe by beginning with our recognition of finite things. According to Descartes in paragraph 24, being able to negate finite things requires that we already see ourselves as limited/finite, which in turn that we must already have conceptions of the unlimited and infinite. In other words, in order for us to cognize that we be a limited/finite being, we must first have an idea of the unlimited. Therefore, Descartes believes that our idea of infinite being should come originally our perception of us being finite beings.If we do not have this idea of God first, we may never have a cognition that we are limited and may not even be able to negate finite things. I also think what Descartes believes is not that we cannot think of ourselves without being awake(predicate) of an infinite being at first. In fact, I think Descartes actually does not deny that we get access to our idea of the infinite through being aware of the finite fir st. Our understanding of ourselves being finite beings can lead us to our idea of an infinite being/God.I think Descartes just wants to clarify that our being able to be aware of the finite and negating it presupposes that we already have a conception of the infinite inseparablely prior to that. Our idea of the infinite is present in us with reality but not merely a negation of the finite that begins with the finite first. Here I think Descartes suggests a substantial claim active the essence of our idea of God. From understanding Descartes claims, I would like to give considerations that support both the finite first and infinite first pictures for a further discussion.In the finite picture, I think it seems possible that our idea of good could merely be some extensions of our finite virtues. We do not negate our finiteness to infiniteness for the idea of God, but we extend our virtues to have the idea. For example, we have benevolence and we extend this virtue, thinking that the re may be an infinite being with infinite benevolence, and then we may have an idea of God. If this finite first picture is true, we may not have a real idea of God that represents who he is, and our idea of God is merely our imagination from finite things and thus does not contain infinite reality.I think the finite first picture is less convincing to me, so I would like to explain this with my consideration of the infinite first picture. I think our being able to extend virtues also presupposes that we already have a conception of the infinite, because being able to conceive something greater than us also means we are aware of our finiteness/limits. As Descartes discusses, being able to cognize the finite presupposes that our idea of God is already in us prior to it. For example, we have an idea of God being infinite through realizing us being finite.On the other hand, we also can have an idea of God who has infinite benevolence through realizing we have benevolence. Our being ab le to extend virtue is some other way that presupposes our idea of God is already in us enabling us to do this. Therefore, I think the infinite first picture is more convincing that all of our understandings of our idea of God, which are negating the finite, extending virtues, enlarging abilities (e. g. I can read signs of human behaviors but God could read peoples mind) and etc, depends on our innate idea of God/the infinite which is already in us prior to these.To conclude, I think we can understand the plausibility of Descartes first argument of Gods existence (that there is an infinite being/God who has infinite formal reality causes my idea of God that has infinite objective reality) through this proposal he criticizes and his responses in paragraph 24, because it gives a sense why our idea of God contains infinite objective reality. His argument seems more plausible with a convincing claim that the idea of God already possesses in us prior to all of our cognitions of God. .