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.