To begin this approach, Descartes introduces formal reality and objective reality. Formal the truth is said to be what humans can actually see and prove to be their senses, and objective reality is what's in their imagination. Descartes goes on to state, 'Hence it comes after, both that nothing can come from nothing, and that what is more perfect cannot derive from what is less perfect' (Third Meditation 29). In such a quote Descartes feels that nothing can come from nothing: a person cannot get one from zero; for an effect to occur their must be considered a cause, and an effect must have as much simple fact as its cause, as so, something that is perfect cannot result from something that is less perfect. For example, it is not possible to acquire hot water with out a thing that creates temperature. Also, electricity is what causes a light bulb to carefully turn on, but a lamp cannot cause electricity. After realising this, Descartes uses this discussion to sum up how the notion of God had become. He feels that he's not perfect and has limitations, so how can the thought of an all knowing and everything powerful being without boundaries be even thought of. All real ideas come from other real ideas, and even unreal ideas have real attributes in them. A traveling pig is probably not real, but the idea comes from a pig, and a soaring object come up with; fairies might not be real, but the idea comes from putting flying qualities to a person. So this Idea of God originated from something as real as God, and since there is nothing on earth that is really as real as God, we should have been born with the idea, then God is out there.
In Descartes meditation his premises are structured. One must first agree to that the idea of God is more real than anything that is bound; after agreeing to that, one must accept that an impact cannot be greater than its cause; and after acknowledging that, one must agree to that the thought of God can't be thought off with out a reason, or without it being real. Once you have accepted many of these it is clear to say that God is accessible, but if one denies any one of these premises the final outcome fails.
Although Descartes believes to have solved the living of God, many other people such as Atheists have went on to claim that God will not exist. A popular argument resistant to the life of God is the paradox of the rock: 'Can God build a stone so heavy that he cannot lift up?'(Quarrels for Atheisms). God may have unlimited power, so if God cannot produce a stone more powerful than him, then he does not have unlimited power; if he is able to create such a stone that he cannot lift, then he still does not have unlimited electric power. So in any event God is not all powerful; something that is all powerful can do everything, and since God cannot do everything, God does not can be found. Though this argument is apparently legit, there are many quarrels that proves its falseness. Descartes thinks that God can do the logically impossible, so God can make two plus two equal five. However, Thomas Aquinas (A Christian philosopher) believed that God may possibly do anything, but he cannot not in favor of the laws and regulations of reasoning. With Aquinas' argument, it proves that God cannot do something, which needs to be bogus because God needs to be in a position to do everything. So if we pick Descartes debate that God can make two plus two five, it also means that God can Create a natural stone that he cannot lift, and then lift up it. This argument may appear difficult to comprehend, but Descartes tells us never to try and understand God since it is extremely hard. This proves that the argument of the paradox is incorrect, a straightforward way to demonstrate that it is false, is that God may be a soul that can't be seen, but here the paradox discussion gives God individuals qualities (The Paradox of the Stone).
The stone discussion failed to verify that God does not can be found, so Descartes discussion about God's life still stands. But considering it in a different way, say that a person is trapped on an island, which person cannot get away from, so he/she creates some form of shelter to be secured from the bad weather such as, rain and winter. Now, this person will not know what perfect is, but while building this shelter, this person will not try to make it bad seeing he/she wishes good security; this person will try to make a perfect shelter, so can the idea of something perfect not come from our selves? Descartes' response to this question would be no: everything has its opposites, and one other cannot be with no other. For instance, there can't be heat without cool, and you might not really know what pain is without delight. Which must imply that God can be found because humans are imperfect, and the contrary of imperfect is perfect.
It is very hard to disprove God's lifestyle, but if God is out there, and everything has a cause; what brought on God? Scientist hold this point highly as to disprove the existence of God. Descartes, however, says never to try to understand God, but his complete meditation makes an attempt to find if God is accessible which is wanting to understand. Descartes somehow goes around the question 'what triggered God'. On the globe we reside in today, one should not be surprised if one will not believe God exists. It is simple, inside our society proof is necessary; if a good friend was to threaten to get rid of themselves, it could not be all those things believable, however when the friend shows a weapon to be utilized, then the perception increase. Also, one cannot go to a courtroom room and tell a judge, 'He is the murderer, you might not understand your honour, but he killed an old lady'. One would need some type of convincing confirmation to confirm that someone is a murderer. It is merely how the world works. Descartes believes that God is not really a Deceiver, and that God is supremely Good, if it is so, how come God allow anguish? If a daddy, that is known to be good, one day sees his twenty three year old son on the road begging for food and money, and the daddy realizes this and walks away, is it reasonable to say that the father is good? Not at all, in fact you might believe that the daddy has empty his kid. This debate has been used countless times to disprove the existence of God.
Arguments can go both ways, which debate about the living of God is ridiculously difficult. One can conclude that God is present, but until physical proof or something more real is shown, expressing that God is out there will just be a theory, at least nowadays. Perhaps if one was at a global where there is merely one faith and one belief, then the idea of a God would be easy to trust, even if it's false. So Descartes has reasonable ideas of the existence of God, but so long as we could in a world filled with numerous race, faith, and ideas, Descartes debate about God's living will always be plausible.
