Does anyone think that Descares argument for the existence of God obtains?

Question

And if so, then why?

Obtains is a philosophical term and it means does it hold true; don't flaunt your ignorance!

Actually, yeah, I meant Descartes, cheers Richard K for pointing that out.

Answer 1

No unfortunately it has flaws.
I am with Descartes up to when he proves that when i think "I am I exist" that statement is true.
After that Descartes is on the slippery slope.
He reasons that "I am I exist" is true because it "clear and distinct" and the only other belief that is "clear and distinct" is existence of God.
To me, for example, existence of God is not "clear and distinct" at all.
So the Cartesian proof fails spectacularly -- in fact it only succeeds in plunging one to depths of skepticism and leaves one no viable way to climb out.

Answer 2

I interpret your question as "Is Descartes' argument
for the existence of God, proof for God's existence."
First let's agree what we mean by proof. There are
mathematical or logical proofs and there are scientific
proofs.
A mathematical proof is based on postulates. These are premises that are readily assumed to be true without proof(e.g., the whole is equal to the sum of its parts). By rigid logical rules of argument we synthesize a new claim from these postulates. This new claim, or conclusion is then called a theorem. Theorems can then be used in place of postulates in the above described process to construct new theorems. Logical proofs fall into this category. Some might say math falls into the category of logic. Either way.
In a scientific proof, we add the ability to use
evidence in place of postulates as well as mathematical
postulates. Evidence is empirically obtained data. It
must be derived directly or indirectly by one of the
human senses,(sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste).
Historical and legal arguments are forms of scientific
arguments as are proofs of scientific theories.
Descartes' premises were not based on any postulates
that are readily acceptable to everyone without themselves
requiring proof. His premises, far from having any evidence seem to come from intuitive notions. So his
arguments have no sound basis mathematically or scientifically.
God is a spiritual concept; its existence can
only be faith based. If a scientific detection of God were
possible, then God would not be spiritual and therefore not
exist in the conventional way it is understood and assumed to exist. In fact if God had a scientifically detectable existence we might just ask, "What
created God". And if your answer is "God always was". then I can we respond with "The universe always was".
God is a notion beyond proof . Its existence has
neither truth nor untruth. If an individual chooses to
believe in God, he cannot be proven wrong. Nor can
he prove the disbeliever wrong.

Answer 3

In Descartes' favour are a couple of relevant points: (1) he correctly believed that commonly accepted knowledge was doubtful because of the subjective nature of the senses (2) he believed that the entire material universe could be explained in terms of mathematical physics.

(1) Today people depend far more on their (misleading) senses regarding the existence of God and religious beliefs than is good. We would do better to lean more towards Descarte's methods, but an intellectual approach is ridiculed today. "If it feels good, do it" and "If it's right for you, works for you, that's fine". He must be birlling in his grave.

(2) Mathematical physics is now an awesome subject especially when applied to the universe which is so finely tuned to 'allow' life to emerge that it is impossible to think they are merely cosmic coincidences. So many fundamental constants like gravity and the electromagnetic force have to be so incredibly precise in their values - and there are so many of them - that it begins to look like they have the values they do because someone intended it that way. This is so widely recognised by cosmologists today that 'the God question' is now a very open discussion.

Granted Descartes believed in God and this coloured his thinking. Perhaps he started with the assumption that Scripture is true and then asked, 'What does it imply about my understanding of science?' That's a perfectly valid line of inquiry, but not the best way to do apologetics. The best starting point to prove religious beliefs is to ask, 'What is it that we can say from the data itself, and can we show non-Christians something from the data that would lead us to certain theological implications?

That is why the current 'Intelligent Design' school of thought differs from old-fashioned 'Creationism'. Its logic is quite different. It does not claim to be a scientific theory but a meta-theory, which Darwinism also is. They are therefore equal theories. They both attempt to organise lower-level theories (such as those that deal directly with empirical data). Since meta-theories have empirical implications, genuine differences between ID and Darwin can be pointed out. This is actually something the public is interested in - evolution is being used as a major tool for undermining theistic belief, and that has serious philosophical implications.

In science, even wrong ideas turn up something interesting, because any theory that gets data examined turns up something. Wrong ideas eventually become dry wells. But Descartes' ideas are still flowing, albeit in some different channels now! Belief in God as the Supreme Cause was historically very invigorating for many scientists for hundreds of years, inspiring a tremendous amount of investigation of design. After a lot of historical and cross-cultural research, sociologist of religion Rodney Stark found that science doesn't get off the ground in any culture unless there's a belief in a rational creator who created an intelligible order. In that sense, history is clearly on the side that belief in God is not a science stopper but a science starter.

Answer 4

There are some good responses here from a strictly rationalist persective, so I will take another perspective that could be substatiated with the text.

Descartes argument, if we look closely at his "Meditations", may be empirical. He says that he shut of all "senses and sensible thoughts" and came to a state which "placed in him the idea of God". That is roughly the same as the claims from many Eastern traditions about the meditative experience of Pure Consciousness; an expereince of boundless, contentless self awareness. His claim to existence is better translated "I am conscious, therefore I exist". The problem here is that there is nothing given in such an experience that connects it to anything outside of the person having it, nor anything that indicates it is more than just an anomoly of the nervous system. More evidence is needed to give such an argument ontological weight.

Answer 5

Descartes Causal argument for the existence of God
(1) There must be at least as much actual reality in the cause of an idea as there is objective reality in the idea itself.
(2) Only an infinite substance would have sufficient actual reality to account for the objective reality of the idea of an infinite substance.
(3) I am a finite substance
(4) Therefore there must exist some other substance which is both infinite and the cause of my idea.

Here's a short, and very general description of the ontological argument:
~God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
~Existence is a perfection.
~God exists.

Another formulation of his argument is as follows:

I exist
I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
The concept must have come from God.
To be a perfect being God must exist.
God exists.

But this theory falls short, because how can there be a someone who caused us and yet remained uncaused?

And for something to be perfect, it has to exist. Merely, the idea does not lead to its existence.

This is where Descartes went wrong, by stating that humans are finite, so the idea of God must be implanted in our mind by God himself. Idea does not lead to existence, the object should first exist for it to be deemed perfect.

Hence, this is not the best argument for the existence of God.

Answer 6

Descartes' arguments for the existence of god are notoriously flawed, but the cogito is unassailable. I think therefore I am is also a slight mistranslation, the correct version is I am thinking, therefore I am [existing].

Answer 7

Did you mean Descartes? If not, excuse my ignorance.

Descartes's first philosophical principle, :"I think; therefore I am," can itself be disputed. It should be, logically, "I think; therefore I am, I think."
His foundation is built on quicksand. There is no proof that God exists; ultimately it is a personal choice to believe in God or not.

Answer 8

obtains what? food? sure. it's col if it does. i'm DAM HUNGRY!