Buttarazzi 1

James Buttarazzi
Philosophy 203-DH
DOS: 10/20/2024
Dr. Naberhaus

Assessing Descartes’ Meditation 3: Proving the Existence of God

In Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes aims to establish a strong foundation for

knowledge, but in order to achieve this, he realizes he must first “raze everything to the ground”

and start fresh from the fundamental principles (Descartes, 59). This means rejecting all previous

beliefs, opinions, and assumptions to build a solid basis of understanding. In Meditation 1,

Descartes starts by doubting the reliability of the senses and our experiences. He proposes two

reasons for this: 1) the possibility of an evil genius deceiving him, and 2) the lack of clear signs

to “distinguish being awake from being asleep” (Descartes, 60;62). In Meditation 2, Descartes

seeks some sense of certainty after this doubt and concludes that the only thing he can be sure of

is his own existence because he is a thinking being – “I am, I exist” (Descartes, 64). However,

this basis of understanding is not enough. Descartes acknowledges that to have certainty beyond

his own existence, he must establish God as a perfect and divine being so he can affirm the

reliability of his own perceptions and to further strengthen the foundation of knowledge of the

world around him.

In Meditation 3, Descartes acknowledges again that he is a “thing that thinks,” however,

he reasons that something must have existed outside of himself for which certain ideas

“proceeded” into his mind (Descartes, 70). In himself, he innately understands the name and idea

of “God”, who he naturally connects to an infinite, “supremely powerful” and perfect being, who

is responsible for all creation and truth (Descartes, 76). Descartes correlates that something

cannot come into existence out of nothing, or simply, something more perfect cannot be created
 Buttarazzi 2

by something that is less perfect (Descartes, 73). Therefore, it was not possible for this innate

idea of God to be caused by a finite being (like himself), because a finite being is less perfect

than an infinite being. Since he has the idea of God, an infinite being, and since he himself is

finite, Descartes concludes that this idea must have been placed in his mind by an actual infinite

being. Therefore, Descartes reasons that God exists (Descartes, 79).

In this argument, Descartes distinguishes between “formal reality,” the actual existence of

something in the world, and “objective reality,” the existence of something as represented by an

idea in the mind (Descartes, 73;74). He argues that the objective reality of an idea must have a

cause that contains as much formal reality as the idea’s objective reality (Descartes, 73). Since he

views God as an infinite and all-powerful being (an idea with infinite objective reality), he

concludes that only an infinite being, God himself, could cause such an idea to originate in his

mind. He further supports this by questioning how a finite being, who is imperfect and lacking,

could conceive of a “more perfect being” and recognize their own limitations (Descartes, 76).

This question strengthens the argument by suggesting it is impossible for a finite being to

naturally conceptualize an infinite entity on its own.

Additionally, his argument relies on the assumption that “God” is a firm entity who is

independent of anything else to exist. This assumption leads him to claim that the idea of God as

a perfect and infinite being, is so “clear and distinct” that therefore it must correspond to

something that is real (Descartes, 77). Descartes connects this reasoning back to his earlier

argument in Meditation 2, where the clarity of his own thinking was sufficient to prove his

existence. Just as he trusted the clear and distinct perception of his own existence, Descartes now

argues that the clarity of the idea of God proves its truth. Since he believes that all clear and
 Buttarazzi 3

distinct ideas must be true, the fact that he possesses a clear and distinct idea of God leads him to

again conclude that God must exist.

One strength of his argument is that it builds on the foundations he established earlier,

both in Meditation 1 and 2 in addition to within Meditation 3. For example, when he reasons that

clear and distinct perceptions are reliable, this is built upon his Cogito Ergo Sum argument as a

thinking-thing. To Descartes, the idea of God is essential to understanding the foundation of

knowledge and truth, where without it there is no assurance that his perceptions (and

understandings) are being deceived. In this sense, he cannot prove anything more if he cannot

first prove the existence of God.

Although the argument does make sense within his method of reasoning, there are many

weaknesses in the reasoning itself that cause uncertainty. One for instance is when Descartes

assumes that a finite being is unable to produce ideas of an infinite construct, such as God (as an

ultimately good entity). He writes, “the more perfect cannot come from the less perfect”,

implying that his finite mind is incapable of naturally generating the idea of God (Descartes, 76).

Yet, it is possible for us as humans to conceptualize some form of infinite. For example, through

trial and error we have successfully been able to create concepts of infinity in things such as

mathematics, or even the idea of perfection in numerous other contexts without needing to claim

that these ideas were innately founded by a “divine being.” This underscores the possible

unreliability of Descartes’ reasoning and disproves his claim that the idea of “God” must come

from God himself.

Furthermore, Descartes relies on the clarity and distinctness of the idea of God as a basis

for truth, believing that clear and distinct ideas are true, even though this principle depends

entirely on the existence of a non-deceptive God. In return, this creates a potential loop in his
 Buttarazzi 4

argument: on one hand he is using the existence of God to guarantee the truth of clear and

distinct ideas, whereas on the other hand he uses the clarity and distinctness of the idea of God as

evidence for God’s existence. Simply, he uses the basis of one unproven argument to solve a

second unproven argument. Without initially accepting that clear and distinct ideas are true, it is

impossible for him to be sure that the idea of God provides rational proof of God’s existence.

In conclusion, while Descartes’ proof for the existence of God is logically coherent, as it

follows his method of reasoning, it contains many flaws that would cause possible uncertainty. It

is internally consistent and builds upon previous established principles from Meditation 1 and 2,

however, it also relies on several other assumptions as the basis for making arguments.

Therefore, Descartes’ argument in Meditation 3 fails to provide a rational foundation for

affirming the reliability of his own perceptions and knowledge, and instead creates uncertainty in

his argument.

1121 Words
 Buttarazzi 5

Works Cited
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Fourth Edition.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1998. (ISBN 9780872204201)