A Case for First Cause: Descartes’ Third Meditation

By Scott Chastain          

                I exist.  I am a thing that thinks.  What else is there? In Meditation III, Descartes attempts to prove that there is something external to him he can be certain of, the existence of God.

                Descartes’ idea of God is where he begins his argument.  How does he define God?  We have to remember at this point Descartes is not asserting that he knows if God exists, but is only considering the possibilities.  

                In order to best delineate how Descartes moves from his idea of God to God exists, we should examine each of his key premises individually, and then discuss a possible criticism of each premise.  If fitting, we should also like to present an answer which Descartes himself might have introduced in response.

Premise 1:  The Idea of God

                All thoughts are equal in and of themselves as thoughts, and all thoughts appear innate.  Ideas, as images, differ widely.  Ideas that represent substances amount to something more than ideas which represent non-substances; and thus have more objective reality, than say, modes of thinking.

                In Descartes’ mind, his idea of God has God as supreme, eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and the creator of things which exist apart from God (if any such things there be).

                Absolute Perfection is itself an idea.  Descartes is far from perfect, and he knows this.  Yet, he can conceive of a state of Absolute Perfection (and thus, by comparison, Absolute Good.  Descartes includes in his idea of Absolute Perfection the impossibility of being less than perfectly good.)

Criticism of the Idea of God

                While we cannot really argue about an idea existing (as it must exist to even be mentioned), we can  argue about the conclusions drawn from the idea.  For example, the concept of Absolute Perfection may be argued.

                Descartes is not Absolutely Perfect, as he himself claims.  His judgments could be wrong.  Perhaps his idea of Absolute Perfection is imperfect.  If this is true, and it probably is, then it could be argued that Descartes is erroneous that there must be an absolute state of perfection. 

Response to the Fallibility  of Understanding  Absolute Perfection

                How can the concept of Absolute Perfection be false?  If the idea of Absolute Perfection is less than perfect, we are no longer discussing Absolute Perfection by definition.  That we can have an idea of Absolute Perfection is similar to our idea of the infinite state of the number line.  From a finite perspective I can well imagine that any number given to me can always have another number added to it.  Therefore, I can conceive of Absolute Perfection from a less than perfect state without fear of corrupting the essence of the idea itself.

Premise 2:  Something Cannot Come From Nothing

                Descartes introduces this intuitive piece of reasoning which states that all things which exist (including ideas) must originate from a source.

                For example, in simple mathematics you cannot divide zero into parts, as zero represents nothing.  There isn’t anything within zero to be extracted.  True, you can have something less than zero (creating a void) but you cannot reach into zero and find anything of real (existent) value.

                This is part of the concept of Cause and Effect.  Everything which is an effect must have something directly connected with it which caused it.  Things do not just “happen” or “come to be” without first being set in motion or otherwise originated by something else.

                For example, I have a glass of milk.  The glass of milk is tipped over, and the milk spills out.  The glass did not simply “happen” to fall.  It fell because an outside force acted upon it.  In this case, we shall say I bumped it with my elbow.  The action of my hitting the glass with my elbow is the cause, and the effect was the glass tipping over (which set in motion another cause and effect: the milk pouring out.)  I am sure you get the point.

Criticism of Cause and Effect

                My basic argument is that Descartes assumes certainty about cause and effect.  How can he?  Using the criterion he laid out in the earlier Meditations, I ask only, can we be deceived about cause and effect? 

                Cause and effect require time and space, neither of which we can be certain about.  For something to be affected by a cause, a chain of events (time) must occur.  Quite often our perception of time, even using mechanical devices, is inaccurate.  Without checking your watch, what time is it right now?  How far off were you?  This information is far from certain.  For example, let us quickly examine the Big Bang theory.

                The Big Bang theory basically purports that the universe began when a singularity started to expand.  Now granted, this is far removed from Descartes’ time, but in light of this theory, we can assume that if Descartes was presented with it, what could he say?  All the universe was compacted into a singularity, which is to say, a single point in space.  Being a point, it had no height, width or depth, so therefore, no space.  Having no space, it also had no time.  The normal rules of cause and effect simply fail to operate in this idea.  However, despite this, the theory states the universe began with no cause.  So we have an effect without anything to precipitate it.

Response to the Uncertainty of Cause and Effect

                By applying reason, we can deduce that all logical fallacies must be dismissed.  He would probably simply inform us that the Big Bang theory is the product of imperfect reasoning.  Cause and effect are self-evident, he might say.  He knows he exists, and that he has thoughts.  The thoughts are an effect of his existence (although it may be argued that it is not necessary that one thinking and  existing are mutual, but in the case of a thinking thing it is an effect.)  If his existence has caused him to think about his own existence, then this, which is so clear and distinct (I exist with the ability to think, and as a result I think) would only seem to be a logical consideration

Premise 3:  Principle of Causal Perfection

                For a stone to exist, it must have come from something which had all the parts of the original stone within it.  I cannot make tomato paste without tomatoes, after all.  We only feel, for example, the warmth of the Sun on any given August day to be about 98° F., however the Sun could not provide us with this much heat if the Sun itself were not at least 98° F.   Descartes also says that certain ideas, like the idea of Absolute Perfection, must come from a source which contains at least as much of the principle form as the idea which results.

                This can be summed up by saying that any given idea, which has a certain amount of objective reality, must surely derive this objective reality from a cause, which contains as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea itself.  Formal reality would be “actuality” while objective reality is “conceptual reality.“

                Any idea is something (an idea) and cannot come from nothing.                  An idea of Absolute Perfection cannot originate in a mind which is less than perfect, Descartes argues, as the mind does not contain the components (perfection) upon which the idea is built.  There must be a source for this idea of Absolute Perfection which is separate from the flawed mind.  Something which contains Absolute Perfection within it must be the source.

Criticism of Causal Perfection

                Is it necessary for the cause to contain as much substance as the effect?  This seems to be one of those intuitive forms of reasoning again.  Perhaps we should examine a common example, such as striking a match.  Does the friction of striking a match produce at least much heat and light as the flame that is produced?  (Descartes states earlier that we cannot claim “potential” essence.  Either we are perfect or not.  This means that the match cannot contain “potential“ heat and light.)  Well we can clearly see that the match doesn’t  contain the same heat and light that it produces after striking.

                It seems to be a false conclusion.  There may be more “effect” than the “cause” contains.  If this is true for the match, it cannot also be stated that it should be equally true that I can obtain an idea of perfection from an imperfect source (an incremental effect).

Response to Incremental Effect

                It is possible we are confused at to the real source of the fire in this case.  Could we be making a misjudgment that the act of striking a match produces the flame?  Yes, there could be innumerable sources of the heat and light we erroneously apply to the match.

                For example, perhaps invisible “fire gnomes” who live in a parallel universe have the job of attending to every unlit match in this universe.  Behind them they have direct access to a giant fire.  This fire has much more light and heat than all of the matches in this universe combined can produce.  Perhaps, as we strike a match, the “fire gnome” simply transfers the flame from his universe to ours.  Implausible, but conceivable.

Premise 4:  The Idea of God Must Have Originated in a Source Containing Absolute Perfection

                I have already alluded to this previously, so let us state it formally.

                If this concept of Absolute Perfection which Descartes possesses cannot have come from a faulty source, such as himself or other members of society (if they even exist), then it must have come from a perfect source outside of himself.

                Descartes’ idea of God also contains this concept of Absolute Perfection.  If his idea of God contains attributes which he could not have imparted into it, the idea of God must be causally connected to the source of Absolute Perfection.

                This Absolutely Perfect source, therefore, has all the attributes contained in Descartes’ idea of God.  Therefore, this source is God.  Therefore, God exists.

Criticism of Descartes’ Proof of God

                If any of the former criticisms are true, then this last premise is false.  If this is the case, we can conclude that this argument does not offer viable proof that God exists.

                In conclusion, the argument follows that Descartes has an idea of God, who is Absolutely Perfect.  Something, including ideas, cannot come from nothing.  His idea of God contains Absolute Perfection.  This idea of Absolute Perfection cannot have come from himself, as he is imperfect.  Therefore something which is Absolutely Perfect must have transferred the idea to him.  Therefore, God exists. 

                Descartes provides a strong argument, and there are many criticisms which may be drawn on his individual premises, or the entire Cartesian Circle.   However, I am not wholly convinced that this argument is unsound.  Descartes may, despite my intuition, be correct.