Existence of God Benedict De S
Existence of God Benedict De SExistence of God
Benedict De Spinoza vs. Rene Descartes
In Spinoza's view God is a substance that includes eternal attributes and their necessity. One of the proofs for existence of such a substance is that something does not exist if and only if something else prevents its existence. For example, people walk on earth instead of flying on it, because there are rules of gravity that prevent people from flying on earth. Gravity influences everything, which is on earth's surface, thus preventing us humans to fly. Because God is an eternal being consisting of infinite attributes there is nothing that could ever prevent its existence. And that is because for something to contradict God's existence it must have something in common with God externally, through which it can act on God. For example, a square circle does not exist because there are certain rules about the circle that contradict to the existence of it being square. Square circle and a circle have something in common because for one thing they both deal with circle. However, this is not the case with God. God is a substance that can be understood only independently, and can not have anything in common with anything else. Since there can not be anything in common with God, there is no external cause that can act on God; That is there is no external cause that can prevent God's infinite existence.
Furthermore, since God is a supremely perfect being his own nature can not contradict his existence. This part of proof is easier understood when one considers more closely the fact that God is not caused by any external forces. Things that were caused externally owe the qualities that they posses solely to their cause. For example, if there is a critical disease in the bloodline of one's parent the one's child may be at a great risk of having the disease. This, however, is not the case with God. First, because God is eternal and infinitely perfect. Secondly and mainly, because God is a self caused substance. Likewise, for God to self cause itself, its essence must include existence, or existence belongs to it nature. From this it is logical to conclude that God exists.
Descartes case in Meditation V for proving God's existence rests mainly on the infinite perfections that a thing has. Since God's nature involves all perfections, it also involves existence for existence is just one of the perfections that God has. This in its nature is similar to Spinoza's view. However, unlike Descartes, Spinoza explains why God essence must involve existence and provides more convincing proofs for God's existence. In fact Spinoza's reasoning of thought is basically based on his first reasonable-to-believe propositions about substance. The conclusion that Spinoza comes to is derived in most part from expanding those first definitions. Thus, if one agrees with Spinoza's first definitions, one must also agree with Spinoza's conclusion. Descartes on the other hand, does not have such a logical foundation. His proposition is that if God exists than he must have all perfections including the one that involves existence. While it is reasonable to think that God would have all perfections including the existence, it is not clear however why, or how, the kind of a substance, or a thing such as God, must exist in the first place, and must have all perfections.
Unlike Spinoza, Descartes does not show as clearly why one must believe that God exists. Moreover, it is not clear why all of the sadden Descartes travels into another dimension and says that God has all the perfection and one of them is obviously existence. This unprepared and unsupported "jump" is what makes it harder for me to understand and believe Descartes argument for God's existence. The Descartes argument for the existence of God is less powerful than Spinoza's argument in large part because it does not have a solid base of support under it.
Descartes says that the reason why he is bound to make errors is because God gave him a finite understanding and infinite will. However, because God is perfect and knows an infinite number of things, Descartes with his limited knowledge can not show a reason why God must have given him an unlimited faculty of understanding. But Descartes thinks that one of the reasons for him being imperfect could be that he is a small part of God's creation. Namely, he does, or will obtain a place as a piece of the whole Universe, and in this respect he is considered perfect. Another reason could be that if he was given an unlimited faculty of understanding then there would be nothing for him to will any more. He would understand everything in the universe clearly and distinctly and would not need the will simply because there would be nothing to will (p. 198).
When Descartes was doubtful whether anything existed. He concluded that the very fact he doubts, and thinks about it means that exists. Descartes realized that his thinking and conclusion was not caused by some external cause, but was entirely due to clearness in his mind, and his free will. Though having unlimited will and limited understanding working together sometimes results in making errors, still Descartes is very thankful to God for giving him an unlimited will.
The free will is infinitely perfect and can not in itself be the cause of errors. It is the will that makes Descartes feel similar to God because God has all the perfections obviously including the unlimited will (p. 197). Here is where Spinoza disagrees with Descartes. Spinoza says that God has no will because he is not bound by anyone, and acts as he does. Since God self caused itself it is his necessity to act as he does (p. 60). This means that God in Spinoza's view does not will, or choose to express anything simply because everything that is conceivable or reasonable exists. Suppose there were something that could not logically exit, or whose existence would contradict to its essence, then according to Spinoza's definition God would not express its existence and since everything exists in the sphere of God's infinite intellect that something would not exist. (p. 59)
Both, Spinoza and Descartes agree that God is the cause of everything that exists. Descartes says that the cause of error is the relation between will and understanding. But when will is restricted to those things that we understand clearly and distinctly, like "I think therefore I am", the will does not make wrong judgments. According to Descartes what is clear and distinct must exist. If it exists then God caused it. Since God is a supremely perfect being he can not cause any error. This means that what ever is perceived clearly and distinctly must be true.
Spinoza would probably disagree with Descartes' understanding of will. Spinoza says that the will is not a free cause. For the will to exist it must be one of the attributes of God. Further, it follows that whether the will is finite or infinite it must be caused to act by God. Thus, will is required to act in a specific manner.
Spinoza further proves that will itself does not exist. As was concluded before, God caused all the things to be what they are, and could not have caused them to be anything else because God's freedom is his necessity to act as he does. But suppose God changed his decree, than he would be changing his decisions, and thus using his free will. This very fact that suggests that God changes his will, is absurd because for an infinite being there is no when, after, nor before. In addition, since he changes his will, it means that his intellect was different than it is, which is also absurd because an infinite intellect understands infinitely. Namely, it is possible for me to understand something today that I did not understand yesterday and change my will toward that something because my understanding is limited. However, it is not possible for a being supremely perfect to understand more than he did because his understanding is unlimited from the very first time it created itself, or otherwise it would not be God. Moreover, if we assume further that God's intellect and will changes we must also assume that God's essence changes as well. This means that his essence was different than it is, which is also absurd. If God essence changes than that means that God is imperfect, was caused externally, and had inherited imperfections from his cause such as changing his essence. Further, it means that God is not perfect, and could not possibly be the first cause, and cause everything else. Thus, in order to avoid this absurd we must conclude that God's will, intellect and essence are one and the same.
Furthermore, Spinoza says that not only the free will but also intellect do not belong to God's nature (p.60). Spinoza understands that this may sound very ridiculous to many because they think that since God is a Supreme Being his must have at least free will and an intellect. Despite their believe that God is supremely intelligent, many still think if God created everything which is in his intellect then he would not be able to create any more, and thus, would use up his omnipotence. To prove that God can never use up his omnipotence, we must prove that God can not provide creations though it is in his power to do so. This sounds extremely contradictory to God's omnipotence.
If intellect belongs to some nature, it can not obviously belong to our nature because our intellect maintains by either following, or simultaneously with the things we understand. In other words, our intellect apprehends only by examining things, or at the same time things discovered, while God's intellect is supremely perfect in understanding things because it creates them. So, it could only be God's nature because God is the cause of everything. From this it follows that God's intellect relates to God's essence, and in reality, the cause of things/creations in both their essence and their existence. This is easier understood when one believes that God's power, intellect and essence are one and the same. Accordingly, God's intellect is the single cause of things/creations, and thus, it varies from them in respect to its essence, and existence. In other words, if God's intellect is the cause of a human being as one of his creations then the essence and existence of God's intellect vary from the essence and existence of the human being. Because the cause varies from its effect by the qualities that effect acquires from the cause. Now the proof that Spinoza provides for God's everlasting power to create things is that our intellect in its essence and existence is different from God's intellect. Thus, we could not possibly understand God's intellect. However, we can understand that from the necessity of God's nature an infinite number of things must follow for God is a substance consisting of infinite attributes of which each expresses infinite essentiality.
Even though the Spinozistic discussion concerns God more than man, and Cartesian discussion concerns man more than God Spinoza's view seems more right to me once again because Spinoza has logical foundation from which he builds and concludes most of his proof. Descartes' view of will and intellect was supported by a very reasonable proof such as " I think therefore I am". The idea that when the will is limited to the understanding things are perceived clearly and distinctly convinced me until Spinoza came along and destroyed it all with his deductive conclusions of will, intellect and essence. All I believe now is that there is one substance that has infinite attributes of which each expresses eternal essentiality.