Meditation+Three

Or - The existence of God. Meditation 3 promises to establish a metatphysical result – The existence of God. Descartes gives two proofs for God and they both use the same reasoning, **a known effect can be explained only if a supreme being exists**. e.g., I exist only because God exists. I is the effect (a result). God is the cause (what makes something happen). Why does Descartes need the proof of God?God acts as an epistemological guarantor. How does Descartes know his reasoning in Mediatation 2 (II) is reliable? Because God is reliable. Descartes has introduced a further foundation for knowledge and instead of appealing to scripture he does so through the trademark argument and ontological argument. Descartes’ rationalism is based upon clearly and distinctly understanding the cogito and the existence of God.
 * Truth, God, and the Cartesian circle.**

The Trademark Argument
The **Trademark proof of God** claims that the idea of God could only exist if God produced the idea himself. Descartes wishes the reader to think about the idea of God, or of “**a substance that is infinite**, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else” The challenge is to understand the relation bewteen finite and infinite. In other words something that is has an end (me, you, Desacrtes) is dependent on something that has no beginning or end (God) for existing...and has left its mark...its **trademark** in us...the idea of infinite. Simply put

I have an idea of the perfect being – God.

I am not a perfect being because I get things wrong ...I do...honestly...there was this time I put my guinea pig in the blender and..! I even doubt the truth of my beliefs... what a silly boy! To understand my imperfection, I must have an idea of perfection. Where did the idea of perfection come from? Cause and effect comes into play now! The perfect idea cannot be caused by a less perfect thing. The idea of perfection is a perfect idea. The perfect idea must have a perfect cause. The perfect cause (God.. Duh!) must have placed it in my mind. Descartes is certain about **The Cogito because he has simply a clear and distinct perception of his existence**. Descartes has a rule that will provide him with further knowledge: The Clear and Distinct Rule. “that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true,” The argument can be summarised as follows
 * 1) I know with certainty that I am a thinking thing.
 * 2) This knowledge is based solely on a clear and distinct perception of its truth.
 * 3) Clear and distinct perception would not be sufficient to yield such knowledge if it were in any way fallible. (needs God as guantor such as God needs the clear and distinct rule for proof – thus the cartesian circle)
 * 4) Therefore Clear and distinct perception provides sufficient ground for knowledge.

**Criticisms of God, Clear and Distinct and The Cartesian Circle.**
To prove God, Descartes uses the clear and distinct rule – The Trademark argument uses the clear and distinct rule in order to be accurate about the single idea of a perfect God. Whereas the clear and distinct rule’s reasoning is based upon the the existence of a benevolent God. Oh deary me! The argument is circular and therfore a problem especially in the light of his notorious radical scepticism. The Trademark argument can be criticised through the assumption that there is at least as much reality in the cause of something as there is present in the effect.However to move from the idea of God existing to God actually existing is too big a leap.