Disproving Descartes’ Divine Definition Divination

In René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes seeks to prove both God’s existence and that his ‘clear and distinct’ perceptions—many of which he uses to support his argument for God’s existence—must be true as a result. His argument for God’s existence centers around his conviction in God’s essence, the definition of God’s nature. However, Descartes does not know that his definition of God defines God, and accordingly, Descartes cannot prove the existence of the divine he thinks exists without fully knowing exactly what the divine is.

Descartes defines God’s essence to be “infinite substance, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful – the thing from which I and everything else get our existence.” Furthermore, he claims that “I can’t conceive of there being two or more Gods,” which he supports earlier in his argument by deriving God’s existence from the existence of one “archetype,” defined as the cause, or source, of all ideas. He argues that his image of God must be from God himself, contending that “I who am finite would not have the idea of infinite substance in me unless it came from a substance that really was infinite.” Finally, Descartes asserts that “God is the only thing that I can think of whose existence belongs to its essence,” stating that the definition of God and His existence are intrinsically linked. He justifies these definitions through an argument where he contends his convictions must be true because the “light of nature” revealed them to him.

However, it is not clear that Descartes knows or can know enough of God’s essence to prove God’s existence. Descartes’ argument for his knowledge of God’s essence contains a paradox that stems from his first construction of the differences between presentational and formal ideas. If one has infinite perspectives of something, their presentational understanding of that object is the formal reality that object contains. The paradox lies here: Descartes defines the essence of God as that of a “supremely intelligent” being. Understanding arises from the ability to grasp presentational reality as close to formal reality as possible. Thus, the supreme intelligence attributed to God necessitates the supreme ability to perceive the true form and essence of everything. If God is supremely intelligent as Descartes states, God must, by definition, be the only being that can grasp God’s true form and essence. This means that Descartes, in claiming to see God’s formal reality as God sees it, is either contradicting himself or claiming to be supremely intelligent.

Descartes, however, has admitted that he is not supremely intelligent. He notes that “the gradual increase in my knowledge shows that I am imperfect, not that I am perfect,” as the act of increasing his knowledge concedes that gaps exist. Descartes cannot be deceived about his imperfection, as it is impossible to be both perfect and deceived. Because he acknowledges his lack of supreme intelligence, Descartes cannot grasp God’s formal reality, putting his understanding of God’s essence in question.

Even if all the qualities Descartes stated could formally be attributed to God, Descartes still would not know that his understanding of God defines God, for the burden of knowledge for singular essence is infinite. Descartes compares his definition of God’s essence to the definition of a triangle’s essence. However, there is a key difference: The definition of a triangle defines all pre-existing triangles. Since God is singular, any definition of God’s essence must fully define Him. Descartes is unable to prove that the qualities he gives God are the only true qualities of God in the same way that one cannot know the essence of a forest by closely inspecting a few square meters. Therefore, even if Descartes can soundly attribute qualities to God, his understanding remains limited by the unknown.

As Descartes cannot grasp God’s essence, it’s clear that his idea of God is merely presentational, produced from finite ideas such as God’s works. Thomas Hobbes provides a framework for this, providing possible causes for each attribute Descartes ascribes to God. Substance comes from reasoning, infinite nature from the idea of boundaries, and independence from a lack of origin. All the qualities Descartes attributes to God can be acquired as presentational reality from existing causes perceived in the world.

Descartes has failed to prove that his definition of God’s essence is true or complete, instead relying on his clear and distinct thoughts in a seemingly circular manner. He has failed to prove that he has anything more than a presentational understanding of God’s essence and therefore cannot justify God’s existence in the form that he envisions.

Works Cited