Descartes's argument for God - wtf is he talking about!?

[PookyBoy]

Okay first this "Causal Principle".

1. Every event has a cause.

2. The cause must be at least as perfect as the effect.

3. If something represents something else, then the cause of the representation must be at least as perfect as the thing represented.

Then his argument for existence of God.

P1: My idea of God represents a perfect being.
P2: The cause of a representation must be at least as perfect as the thing that it represents.
------
C1: The cause of my idea of God is a perfect being, i.e., God. In other words: God exists.


I am very confused. Specifically, what does 2. and 3. mean??

 

[TheBDB]

He was talking out of his a$$....don't worry about it.

 

[JBAR]

Prime Mover to create a perfect (less fall) world.

 

[PookyBoy]

I wish I can forget about it but I have a philosophy exam the day after tomorrow so I have to worry about this.

Any philosophy gurus? Need some help please.

 

[Dudd]

My crack at it:

#1) Self-explanatory
#2) The cause must be at least as "perfect" as the effect. For example, tossing a rock isn't going to create a car because the effect of creating that car is a lot "more perfect" than the throwing of a rock.
#3) Not really sure. If you include P1 & P2, I'd hazard it to mean that since the world itself is fairly perfect, whatever caused the world has to be even more "perfect". That "perfect cause" is God.

Anyways, I agree with TheBDB: it's a lot of BS. You can't prove God either way.

 

[Stojakapimp]

I went over that stuff 2 years ago in a philosophy class but i can't remember much.

 

[nirgis]

what are you reading for this class?

Basically, Descartes claims that since he can conceive of a perfect being and since he is himself imperfect, this perfect idea must have been implanted by a perfect being. This being=god.

Also, I would refer to sparknotes for clarification if needed. or google

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: nirgis
what are you reading for this class?

Basically, Descartes claims that since he can conceive of a perfect being and since he is himself imperfect, this perfect idea must have been implanted by an imperfect being. This being=god.

Also, I would refer to sparknotes for clarification if needed. or google

And this guy is a well respected philospher??? Why are they wasting time teaching such stupidity...

 

[wicktron]

I hear Descartes smoked a lot of weed. Dude needs to hook it up.

 

[nirgis]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: nirgis
what are you reading for this class?

Basically, Descartes claims that since he can conceive of a perfect being and since he is himself imperfect, this perfect idea must have been implanted by an imperfect being. This being=god.

Also, I would refer to sparknotes for clarification if needed. or google

And this guy is a well respected philospher??? Why are they wasting time teaching such stupidity...

oh.... I don't know, kind of set the course of philsophy for the next several centuries

 

[DaWhim]

seems like this is a question you have to answer for your class.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: nirgis

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: nirgis
what are you reading for this class?

Basically, Descartes claims that since he can conceive of a perfect being and since he is himself imperfect, this perfect idea must have been implanted by an imperfect being. This being=god.

Also, I would refer to sparknotes for clarification if needed. or google

And this guy is a well respected philospher??? Why are they wasting time teaching such stupidity...

oh.... I don't know, kind of set the course of philsophy for the next several centuries

Well I hope they have come up with some better stuff since then!

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: PookyBoy
Okay first this "Causal Principle".

1. Every event has a cause.

2. The cause must be at least as perfect as the effect.

3. If something represents something else, then the cause of the representation must be at least as perfect as the thing represented.

Then his argument for existence of God.

P1: My idea of God represents a perfect being.
P2: The cause of a representation must be at least as perfect as the thing that it represents.
------
C1: The cause of my idea of God is a perfect being, i.e., God. In other words: God exists.


I am very confused. Specifically, what does 2. and 3. mean??

I loved my philosophhy classes, so here is my interpretation.


1. Every thing exists because of something.
2. That something can not be any less perfect than it's creation. This means that the quality of the "product" can not exceed the quality of the source.
3. If A represents B, then the cause of A must be at least as perfect as B. This means that if A == B, then whatever created A can be of no less quality than B.


Because of this, for his second premise, the cause of his representation of a perfect being must be at LEAST as perfect as the actual being. Therefore, he concludes that God IS a perfect being and therefore exists because he was able to think that god exists.


The importance of learning previous philosophers ideologies is so that we don't make the same mistakes in our deductive reasonings.