Only by granting the validity and truth of the
principle of contradiction beforehand, can his existence be established as an
objective fact. That is exactly what he does. The same line of reasoning applies
to his proof of God's existence and infinite perfection. Descartes rejection of
the principle of contradiction invalidates his arguments because, as long as
this principle is not established and accepted, he could never be sure whether
it would be possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time. Similarly,
Descartes would have to remain doubtful as to whether God could be veracious and
not veracious, deceiving and not deceiving unless the principle of contradiction
was taken for granted before Descartes begins to prove God's existence.
Descartes does not accept this principle of contradiction throughout his
reasoning. This is a glaring inconsistency in his arguments. Descartes further
conducts his inquiry into the existence of God with the supposition that he
doubts the principles of sufficiency and causality. Unfortunately, he uses these
principles before he has proven their validity. Descartes believes that God is
an infinitely perfect being that could not have originated in our minds because
an idea such as this would exceed the causality of the mind, as the mind is less
perfect than the content of the idea itself.
Consequently, the idea had to be
produced by God himself otherwise there would be no sufficient reason for the
presence of such an idea in the mind. Clearly, Descartes uses the principles of
sufficient reason and causality in demonstrating the existence of God, even
though he doubts their validity. Therefore, if he lets these principles stand as
doubtful, his entire argument is nullified by doubt. If he accepts them as valid
prior to establishing their validity, he is acting in contrary to his
fundamental doubt doctrine. In either case, he makes the existence of God
impossible. Descartes could not prove God's existence consistently as he could
only do so through the use of a reasoning process, which, according to his own
principles, was essentially doubtful in its validity. The only thing he could
ever be certain of was his own existence. This too, strictly speaking, he should
have doubted, because he had doubted the principle of contradiction and the
testimony of his own consciousness. If Descartes had been consistent, he would
have aligned with the skeptics because his universal doubt left him no other
choice. Universal doubt, therefore, is a flawed course in pursuing an
understanding of human knowledge and the existence of God. God cannot exist
using Descartes arguments. Complete doubt cannot lead to an understanding of
human knowledge.
Words: 1327
|
