>>I think you would take exception with the premise "q implies p", or specifically that the existence of the idea of perfection must come from a perfect being.<<
The purpose of the ontological and cosmological argument is to prove that God exists. But you appear to be assuming what needs to be proved. That is, in fact, one of the critiques of these arguments.
Let me explain. In the first Meditation, Descartes tries to place Math and Science on a firm foundation and overcome scepticism (in the process) by using Doubt as his method. Descartes claims to Doubt just about everything in the First Meditation. He doubts the world exists, God exists, material being exists, etc. But there is one thing he cannot doubt: he cannot doubt that he is doubting while he is doubting. Insofar as doubting is an act of thinking, I doubt or "I think, therefore I exist" becomes the first indubitable principle of philosophy. The maxim of Scepticism, that Nothing is True, has clearly been refuted by Descartes because it is impossible to doubt that you are doubting while you are doubting.
Now I doubt and am conscious therein that I am a confused being in the world or otherwise I would not attempt to doubt everything. As a confused being in the world, I am aware of myself as being imperfect and finite. But how can I be aware of myself as imperfect and finite without simultaneously being aware of the Perfect and Infinite? I only know what light is because I experience the Dark. I only know what Good is because I experience Evil. I only know what Smart is because I know what Stupid is. If everyone was supposedly smart, then the bottom 10% of the so called Smart people would be classified as Stupid.
Descartes was a sly little devil. He claimed to doubt everything in the First Meditation but ended up assuming what he intended to doubt. How else could he have proved that God existed in the "Cogito ergo sum"? |
