This paper will be a critical analysis of an argument made be Descartes on the subject of God and that he exists. I will begin with providing a brief summary of an argument presented in meditation five and will dissect it to its raw argument form. Finally I will come to a conclusion regarding the validity of the argument.
The primary argument made by Descartes in meditation five is demonstrating that God exists because God is a perfect being and that existence is necessary for perfection. Descartes uses analogies such as the relationship between a mountain and a valley (page 66). The mountain and the valley are dependent on one another and proving that one exists will prove that the other exists also. This case is showing that if one were to find a mountain, one would know that there is a valley somewhere nearby. This case does not prove that any mountain or valley exists, but it does prove that if you were to find one you would find the other.
Descartes applies this argument to God and perfection. First he makes the claim that God is perfect. Part of our agreed definition for God is, simply that God is perfect. Then Descartes goes on to attribute perfection to existence. "Existence is a perfection" (p. 67) Descartes makes it very clear that existence is a necessary clause for perfection. His argument can be broken down into a very simple argument form. God is perfect, and existence is necessary for perfection, therefore one can only deduce that God must exist. This type of argument is an incredibly circular one.
This argument uses semantics to extrapolate conclusions from only definitions. The primary problem with this argument is that the premises are defined by the argument. The premises of this argument have a less than concrete definition and each premise confirms the definition of the other premises. This leads to a self-affirming, circular argument. Argument forms such as this are very hard to prove wrong for the
reason that they are circular and are interdependent. These premises are not facts but they are terms that have been set forth by Descartes. The fact that Descartes contends that perfection entails existence does not make it a fact, and is the weakest point in his argument. If someone where do disagree with the statement that existence is necessary for perfection, the whole argument fails. This type of argument is one that can be powerful should you agree with all the premises, however it does not prove the truth of each premise.
One could swap in new premises in the same form as this argument and make a plainly false argument. For example, books are full of information and information is necessary for wisdom, therefore books are wise. This case clearly does not hold true. Books are not wise, but if you use each premise to define the other premises you can make a seemingly valid argument out of several different fallacies.
The argument at hand, made by Descartes in the fifth meditation on philosophy concerning God and that he exists uses a very circular logical form and disputing one premise leads to the failure of the entire argument. I find that Descartes fails to prove that existence has anything to do with perfection, and that it does not take much to disagree with Descartes on this premise.
