Descartes’ Meditation 3 is a proof which attempts to provide evidence for the existence

of God. Descartes gives this evidence through reasoning, starting out by describing how he

comes to this conclusion of the existence of God. He does this by closing himself off mentally

from the outside world, ignoring sight, hearing, and his other senses and looking deeply in

himself (Cahn 496). This allows him to make an introspective look at God’s existence without

the influences of another person. From this state, he organizes his thoughts and from his

collective thoughts and reasoning, he deduces that God does exist due to his finite existence, a

mere substance that is “not sufficient to explain my [Descartes] having the idea of an infinite

substance, since I am finite, unless this idea proceeded from some substance which really was

infinite” (Cahn 500) and the understanding that God is a substance that “is infinite, independent,

supremely intelligent and supremely powerful” (Cahn 500). This basically means that since he

should not be able to have the ability to think the way he does without either being an infinite

being or having an infinite being put the thoughts into his head. This explanation appears to be

extremely logical, but once it is analyzed several flaws in reasoning are picked up from the

reading. I agree with most of Descartes reasoning on the existence of God, which I will clarify

further, along with an explanation of the biggest flaw in Descartes’ argument.

Descartes provides logical philosophical evidence for the existence of God. The step by

step analysis from the very beginning of a closed out state of mind allows the reader to be

persuaded by his argument. One of the most important pieces of evidence he provides is

the ‘chain of creators’ logic. He asks the question, “From what source, then, do I derive my

existence? Why, from myself, or my parents” (Cahn 501). He is saying that God has to exist

since he came from his parents, whom are also finite beings that also came from another set of

parents and so forth, leading back to an infinite being that gave birth to the chain of creators that

resulted in him. This is logical reasoning, since all things do have an origin, which would mean

that God, the ‘infinite’ being, is the origin of existence, since he created everything from the

beginning and has no creator seeing as he is an infinite being.

Another reasonable point Descartes made in attempt to prove God’s existence is the idea

of perfection. If a human being is capable of achieving perfection, then it can reasonably be

assumed that he can create God inside himself, since he has reached the pinnacle of life and is

essentially a God. However, Descartes points out by explaining that “with my knowledge thus

increased, I could not acquire all the remaining perfections of God” (Cahn 501). This means that

humans cannot reach perfection, since no matter how much knowledge is gained, there is a point

where “it is incapable of greater increase” (Cahn 501). He also mentions that God transcends this

limitation by being infinite (Cahn 501). This argument is important because it means that

humans cannot possibly have created God inside themselves, because God is the only perfect

being, due to his infinite growth. This reasoning closes off the possibility of a human being God

and, with the previous argument, shows that God should exist.

However, the biggest flaw that I can find in the argument is the main argument that I

wrote above in the summary. Descartes’ reasoning on how humans are only sure of our

perception of being finite if God exists and God exists because we are sure of our perceptions is

circular reasoning. That flawed logic alone is enough cause to discredit the writing, since it relies

more on faith than reasoning. Nonetheless, Descartes’ argument on the existence of God has

practically no other flaws in logics, despite the existence of God being out of the realm of

scientific fact and logic.

Descartes Meditation 3 is very well written. His general logical flow is very proficient in

explaining how he came to the knowledge of God’s existence. He provides enough knowledge

for the reader to follow along in his ‘creators’ cycle’ and argument of human imperfection, both

of which is relatable to the reader and easily understood in terms of logic. His biggest mistake is

the reliance of faith in his principal argument, but the majority of his writing is logically sound

and provides enough supporting evidence, which is why I agree with his final assessment of

God’s existence.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. 7th ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2006.

Print.