There are different approaches in philosophy that discuss the existence of God from all viewpoints. Some intend to prove that God exists, whereas other concepts support the idea of his non-existence. The third ones suggest the idea of agnosticism, claiming that it is not possible to prove the existence or non-existence of God. The basis of every approach strongly differs, and even if one supports an author’s position, the reasoning might seem inappropriate for them. Descartes’s proof of God’s existence seemed the most reasonable among the ones suggested.
In his Fifth Meditation, Descartes makes a strong case for the existence of God. Descartes portrays God as the perfect being in this Meditation, claiming that he lacks nothing if he is genuinely perfect. As a result, since this God is devoid of nothing, he cannot be devoid of being, hence he must exist (Descartes, 2002). He says God is like a mountain, and his existence is like a valley. He’s merely noting that denying God’s existence is similar to denying that a mountain misses a valley. Descartes further claims that it is not his thoughts that cause God to exist, but rather the fact that God does that which affects his thinking. He states that he is unable to come up with the notion that God exists (Agostini, 2019). Descartes believes God exists because God permits him to believe in his existence. So, since this perfect entity has given him the power to generate such thinking, it must be true that God exists.
The argument succeeds in proving the existence of God, as it examines the possibility of God not existing and shows why it is not possible. Unlike the two arguments of God’s presence in the Third Meditation, which are strategically important in his attempts to prove that anything he senses clearly and unambiguously must be real, the proof that God does exist in the Fifth Meditation does not seem to have any kind of strategic goal (Tweyman, 2022). Descartes addresses the concept of God and that concept being incompatible with his non-existence. This seems to be the strongest point of the argument. Besides, he discusses the concept of believing in God and comes to the statement that it would not be possible to do so if there was no God. Even though people tend to believe in many things that might not be real, the fact that historically most people believed in the existence of God in different eras of humanity seems to relate to Descartes’s statement.
In my opinion, God exists, and for me, it is supported not only by logical arguments similar to the previously discussed one. The idea of fideism is closer to me than basing believing in the existence of God on pure rationality. I think that believing in something usually does not require any arguments. There are things we know or suggest, yet things we believe in belong to a separate category. The nature of God is, perhaps, impossible to understand for human beings, as God cannot be examined scientifically, whereas science is the main tool for understanding complex things. The faith and the feelings seem to encompass more than thinking, as often, even if something is not understood, it can be represented in feelings. Therefore, basing believing in God on faith rather than a logical argument seems appropriate, as God is, at least as a concept, a complex being.
In conclusion, even though the logical basis in Descartes’ proof of God’s existence seems accurate, it is not necessary to base believing in God on any. Descartes provides the philosophical argument of the impossibility of God not existing because he is the perfect being who could not lack existence. Yet, it seems more compatible to base something like believing on pure faith, which is the idea of fideism. Therefore, God exists, but it does not require any proof or argumentative support, as believing is not equal to knowing or suggesting.
References
Descartes, R. (2002) Meditations on first philosophy. Caravan Books
Tweyman, S. (2022). Descartes’ meditations: New approaches–introduction. The European Legacy, 1-8.
Agostini, I. (2019). Descartes’s philosophical theology. In S. Nadler et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Descartes and Cartesianism. Oxford University Press, 209-225.