Analyze and evaluate - Essay Example

Evidently, the two queries differ in the sense that one ought to be responded to by virtue of proving the existence of God while the second already holds the truth of God’s existence yet seeks resolution concerning how God’s qualities may or may not suit the act of deception. On this ground, it follows that the two proofs of God’s existence are necessarily different. To analyze how the synthesis of one proof is distinct from that of the other, in the process, one would be able to figure that besides God’s existence, the properties associated with the existing entity, being supreme and infinite in nature, must be utilized to affirm a congruous proposition that God cannot be a deceiver.

According to Descartes’ ontological argument stating “The mere Idea of God, proves God’s existence” (Descartes’ First Proof, Med. III) -- God, being a concept, is sufficient proof in itself of His existence and this may be found to acquire strong support from the unshakeable truth “I think therefore I am” (Med. II) for with this conclusion is the knowledge of the fact that the rational capacity of an individual attests to his being and the natural ability to rationalize as such is not without value or consequence so that what is conceived exists as well.

Thus, the notion of God in the mind is all that it takes to establish the truth that God does exist though no material or concrete evidence is perceived. Descartes, however, further explicates “ … because I cannot conceive anything but God to whose essence existence necessarily pertains” (Descartes’ Argument in Med. V) and that “By the name God, I understand a substance infinite, [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful” (Med. III: 22 – 23). In addition, hence, Descartes acknowledged herein that the encompassing presence of God entails the presence of attributes preconceived or known prior in reference to God on the basis of which, he manages to validate that through God’s perfection, the idea of God’s infinity must have been something implanted by God himself (Med. III:38) for Descartes argues “I should not, however, have the idea of an infinite substance, seeing I am a finite being” (Med. III:23). Apparently, Descartes needed the two proofs of God’s existence to be able to substantiate a sound claim that it is not possible for God to deceive the philosopher despite his finite limits and weakness as a rational human being.

Having realized that God is perfect occurs equivalent to having arrived at the thought that deception may only come from the absolute opposite of perfection which is imperfection (Med. III). Both proofs are of equal significance for in the event God could not be proven to exist, it is useless to find out the likelihood that he is a deceiver and similarly, it makes no sense to justify God’s existence alone for this would readily demand investigation of what he is made of in finer details. Rather than operating from different aspects, independent of each other, they function hand in hand to strengthen one another’s validity and worth.

Secondly, does Descartes give a satisfactory account of human error, given a perfect and divine creator? Are Descartes’ arguments convincing, or does it still seem unnecessary and less than perfect that God created us with flaws? Descartes finds “error is virtually a moral failing, the willful exercise of my powers of believing in excess of my