Descarters proof for the existence of God part II

Next, Descartes argues that there must be at least as much reality in a cause as in the effect of that cause. The effect gets its’ reality from the cause, and for the cause to give reality to the effect must first possess it. Therefore, something cannot come from nothing, and, further, what is more perfect; contains more reality, cannot arise from what is less perfect. This is not only true for formal reality, but also for ideas where one is considering objective reality. For example, a stone can only come into existence by something that contains, either formally or eminently, everything to be found in the stone.
Finally, since Descartes exists and is imperfect, has ideas, and knows of the attributes that define a perfect being, and no effect can have more reality than its’ cause, then a more perfect being must exist. A being that possesses all the attributes Descartes describes because a finite being cannot have an idea of infinity without their being something infinite, or an ignorant being who doubts and is imperfect having an idea of something omniscience and perfect, or a not all-powerful being having an idea of omnipotence without there being something that is all-powerful. And since Descartes has proven to have not created himself, which exists, because he would have given himself all the attributes previously mentioned and he does not contain all these attributes at the time of writing his Meditations, he must have been created by a more perfect being. He could have been created by a number of beings less perfect than perfection, but they must have been created by something more perfect, until the ultimate cause is reached, which is God. Descartes also argues that it cannot be supposed that several partial causes contributed to his creation because the inseparability of God is one of the most important attributes of His perfection. For no cause could have made him understand the interconnection of the perfections without making him recognize what they were.
To me, Descartes succeeds in his proof for the existence of something that possess the attributes that he suggests define a perfect being. And this thing is benevolent, inseparable, and contains all the attributes of a human, but not limited to. I believe this proof can be used to define the universe itself, and not a sentient being that exists separately from it. All of these attributes can define the universe that we exist within. It is the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator, and possess all the modes which make up thinking, but this may not be its’ essence, just a function. I do not think Descartes proves there is a God who has a plan and is concerned with the emotions of humans. I think benevolence exists within the universe, but the universe itself is indifferent to the pain of humans. I do not believe the universe can be a deceiver because it is the creator and for it to deceive it would have to create a being that is capable of being deceived and this would be a being that if deceived it would still be following the function given to it by its’ creator, and if the universe could will pain upon a human through deception, the human would understand it is the will of the infinite universe and would accept it as true until the universe changed again. Finally, I think Descartes makes a great argument for existence, but the ultimate decision of the existence of God as anyone knows Him is left to faith.

Descarters proof for the existence of God part I

Descartes makes a few arguments for the existence of God. His most famous, which can be found in the Third Meditation, can ultimately be summed up in five steps. First, Descartes proves that he exists. He attempts to withdraw all his senses and regard all thoughts as false and worthless. He discovers that he is a thinking thing; a thing that doubts. Even though the objects of his sensory experience may have no existence, the modes of thinking still exist; therefore he exists. And from this process of doubting Descartes argues that he is imperfect, because a perfect being has all knowledge and cannot doubt.
Second, Descartes discovers that all ideas are either innate or adventitious. The innate ideas could not have been put there by himself, because if he could put innate ideas into himself then he could just as easily put other ideas into himself also which he proves that he did not because he doubts. So, the innate ideas must be put into his mind by a greater being. The adventitious ideas are external to him, and since he cannot create ideas from nothing, there must be some objective reality to these ideas. Even though some of these ideas seem absurd and completely without truth, they still are made up of an external reality. Like, the image of a mermaid, which is not known to exist, comes from the image of a woman and a fish. Therefore, something exists externally from him, and his thoughts are dependent on these objects being real.
Third, Descartes describes what he believes to be the attributes of God. He has ideas of eternity, infinity, omniscience, omnipotence, and creation; the defining attributes of God. And since all fraud and deception depend on there being a defect, God cannot be a deceiver because he is perfect by definition. Also, after Descartes’ proof for the existence of God, he says since he was created by God then he is somehow created in His image or likeness, and since he is a thinking thing, so, too, God must be a thinking thing.

So How is Metaphysics Possible?

For Kant, the metaphysics of previous generations is worthless nonsense. But it is at the end of his Treatise that Kant answers the question that he started his book with. His answer is: "critique." Reason can't teach us regarding what lies beyond its grasp but it can help us categorize and classify the different concepts of our faculties of sensibility, understanding, and reason. Instead of looking outward, we should look inward.
For Kant, science is a body of synthetic a priori knowledge. Reason has not power to gain a priori knowledge of things that are outside our experience.ut
For Kant, all the metaphysics that has been conducted up till now has been completely useless.

But even then he says that we are drawn to metaphysics and that we can't leave it alone. He envisions that the previously dogmatic metaphysics should begin to advance the critical philosophy that he envisions with great vigor.

He also challenges anyone who disagrees with his dismissal of all dogmatic metaphysics and he asks them to give one example of metaphysical synthetic a priori judgment that can and has been proven with certainty. It is impossible for this type of judgment to be based on conjecture, because something that is categorized as an "a priori truths" is itself necessary, and thus can't be based on common sense, since we derive our common sense from experience. Common sense can't advance metaphysics as a science.

Various Ideas of Reason and how they Mislead the Understanding

In the last part of his book, Kant talks about how the numerous ideas of reason and how the mislead the understanding into posing insoluble metaphysical questions. Kant, like Hume, draws a distinction between metaphysics from mathematics and science. But instead, he says that the former has bounds while the later two don't have any bounds, but instead have two limits. Math an Science are complete and they are limited only in that their scope is not absolutely general. Math can't answer metaphysical questions & science can't give us insight to into things in themselves. But morality and mathematics aren't needed in mathematical explanations and the nature of things in themselves does not affect the advancement of science.

Metaphysics according to Kant is bounded. Why? Because reason poses questions for itself that it cannot answer. However, in these questionings, our reason bumps against boundaries that it can't got past. This includes the fact that we can't gain definite knowledge outside our experience. But this is useful to us. Although we can't go beyond them, we can infer that there exists something beyond them. We can also infer the connection that they must have with the world that we do perceive.

For Kant, we can't prove anything about the existence of God or His nature.

On Causal Connections

Humean skepticism comes about when Hume asks how we perceive causal connections between events. Hume declares that we can't discover the concept of causal connection by reason alone. The conclusion that he comes to is that we have no rationally justified knowledge of cause and effect. Our causes are justified by the habit of seeing certain events result from previous events. With regards to this, Kant agrees that we can't discover the concept by means of reason. But, unlike Hume, he does not conclude that this concept is just a result of habit or custom. He suggests that causation is a priori concept of understanding applied to appearances. We can't know anything about things in themselves. Cause and effect is not to be found in these appearances. It is a part of the form given by understanding. Causation is a type of experience that makes it intelligible to us. Hume questions us as to how we can derive pure concepts from experience and responds to his own inquiry that we can't. Kant agrees with this. Wen cant derive pure concepts from experience, but instead we derive experience from these pure concepts.

On the Possibility of Science

Another question that Kant asks is "how is pure natural science possible?" To this Kant says that when we talk about nature we are talking about objects of experience as they appear to us.
These experiences should be in line with universal and necessary laws . According to him, we do study the natural sciences and utilize universal and necessary laws. Thus there is some pattern of regularity in our experiences, but the question is how can this be?
For Kant, there is a difference between judgments of perception and judgments of experience. The former bring together many empirical intuitions and are only subjectively valid. The later apply concepts of understanding to judgments of perception, changing them into objective, universally valid laws. The difference between these two forms of judgments is that the former deal only with what we sense, while the latter deal with what we infer from our perceptions. Judgments of perceptions are not disputable because they are completely subjective. You can't tell me that the sky doesn't appear blue, red, white, or hot pink to me. Judgments of experience can be disputed because they are objective. Although you couldn't tell me what color the sky looks like to me, you can tell me what color it really is.

Is Mathematics Possible

The first question for Kant is "how is pure mathematics possible?" If math is based on synthetic a priori cognitions, we should, in theory, be able to draw connections between different concepts by pure intuition. Intuition would connect two things that are connected in synthetic judgments. There are two different types of intuitions for Kant, namely, empirical intuitions and pure intuitions. The first are what we normally call perception. Since math basically consists of the former, meaning synthetic, a priori judgments, there should be a form of pure intuition that is innate in us and allows us to connect different concepts without any reference to the experience of our senses. The reply that Kant gives is that space and time are not things in themselves, but they are the form and sensibility. These are innate intuitions that shape how we perceive the world. Thus, before any concept the things we experience as a result of our senses, we would still have some concept of space and time. Space and time are not things in and of themselves, rather they are empty forms that determine how things appear to us. This is true for all the objects that we perceive within space and time. They do not exist alone, but the objects that we perceive are appearances of things.

Kant was lead, as a result, to three final remarks:

1. That we can have a priori certainty of geometry only because we have pure intuition of space. This certainty is due to the fact that we are only examining our own mental framework, and not things as they are in the world.

2. The says that he is not engaged in idealism. According to the view of idealists there are no real objects in the world. The only things that really exist are minds. Though he believes that we can not perceive things them self, Kant does not deny the existence of the object or any other reality in the world besides minds.

3. Appearance can be deceptive. We can misinterpret what we see and be deceived by such. If space and time exist as realities, then they can be misinterpreted by us, but since they are not realities, but just appearances, they are a priori certain.