A Priori Argument For The Existence Of God

502 Words3 Pages

Descartes defined God as a supremely perfect being, meaning that he contains all supreme perfections. Descartes argued that it is more perfect to exist than to not exist, therefore existence is one of God's supreme perfections and God must exist. 'God exists' must be true by definition because the subject (God) already contains the predicate (exists).
Descartes also believed that God is a necessary being meaning that it is impossible to imagine him as not existing because it is part of his essence as a supremely perfect being, concluding therefore that God must exist.
Descartes stated that 'from the fact that I cannot conceive of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and hence that he really exists.' Descartes …show more content…

Aquinas, however disagreed with this point as he believed that God is beyond human understanding so can't be proven by an a priori argument. God's existence is not self evident to us, only God knows the meaning of the word 'God' by direct self-awareness so only God knows that eternal existence belongs to himself.
Kant argued that we cannot move from concepts and definitions into reality in the way ontological arguments attempt. Definitions can never bridge the gap to tell us what may exist in reality. Saying 'God exists' is true by definition only tells us about the existence of the world God and nothing about the existence of a being 'God'. We might accept that necessary existence forms an essential part of the definition of God, it does not follow that there is a God as we can deny existence of any necessary beings.
Kant also criticised the use of existence as a predicate because he believed it is not a property. A genuine predicate describes the subject, yet existence isn't a property anything can have or not have. A predicate must add to the concept by giving it new properties, which existence does not. Kant concludes that existence is not a real predicate, meaning ontological arguments