Essential Divine Existence

A chat about Cartesian theism

For a breezy introduction, listen to a generated Deep Dive podcast here.

August 15, 2023

Prompt:

Why does Descartes say that existence is essential to God?

ChatGPT:

Descartes argues that existence is essential to God in much the same way that the property of having three sides is essential to a triangle. It is part of the very definition or essence of the thing in question. Here’s a brief outline of his reasoning:

1. Clear and Distinct Ideas: For Descartes, whatever he can conceive of “clearly and distinctly” is necessarily true. This is because he believes that God, being non-deceptive by nature, would not allow him to have such clear and distinct perceptions if they were false.

2. Conception of God: Descartes conceives of God as a supremely perfect being. He argues that it’s impossible to think of a supremely perfect being without thinking of existence because if we think of such a being as lacking existence, it wouldn’t be supremely perfect.

3. Existence as a Predicate: This is where Descartes diverges from many other philosophers. He believes that existence is a valid predicate (a property or attribute). So, when considering God (a supremely perfect being), non-existence would be a contradiction because it would deny that supreme perfection.

4. Analogy: To make his argument more relatable, Descartes uses the example of a triangle. Just as it’s impossible to think of a triangle without thinking of its three angles adding up to 180 degrees, it’s impossible to think of a supremely perfect being (God) without thinking of existence.

5. Ontological Argument: Descartes’ reasoning about God’s existence based on the very definition or concept of God is often labeled as an “ontological argument” for God’s existence. The idea is that if one understands the concept of God as a supremely perfect being, then one must also accept that God exists because existence is part of that concept.

It’s worth noting that many philosophers have criticized Descartes’ ontological argument, with Immanuel Kant being one of the most notable. Kant argued that existence is not a valid predicate; in other words, saying something exists doesn’t add any new property to the thing in question.

Prompt:

Accepting as given that God is supremely perfect, for what reason does he accept that it is better to exist than to not exist?

ChatGPT:

Descartes’ argument hinges on the conception of perfection. If God is conceived as a supremely perfect being, then lacking any quality, including existence, would be a contradiction to this supreme perfection. Here’s how the reasoning unfolds:

1. Nature of Perfection: For something to be perfect, it must lack nothing that would make it more complete or more excellent. Existence can be thought of as a quality that contributes to the completeness or excellence of a being.

2. Comparison with Imperfect Beings: Non-existence is a deficiency or a lack. If a supremely perfect being did not exist, it would lack something (namely, existence), which would make it less than supremely perfect.

3. Existence as a Positive Quality: Descartes posits that existence is a positive quality, not a neutral one. For a supremely perfect being, having this positive quality is better than lacking it.

4. Internal Consistency of the Concept: To conceive of a supremely perfect being that doesn’t exist would be inconsistent. If God is the highest conceivable being in terms of perfection, then God must have all positive qualities, including existence.

Descartes’ argument can be understood by drawing a parallel to other concepts. For instance, imagine the concept of a “perfect athlete.” Part of being a perfect athlete might include qualities like peak physical condition, unparalleled skill in their sport, and unwavering dedication. If someone claimed to be thinking of a perfect athlete who lacked physical fitness, the concept would be contradictory. Similarly, for Descartes, a supremely perfect being that lacks existence would be contradictory.

Again, it’s important to note that this argument has faced numerous critiques throughout the history of philosophy. One key critique is questioning whether existence can be considered a “property” or “quality” in the same way other attributes are.

Prompt:

If God did not exist, then it would lack the quality of existence, but why does Descartes say that existence is a positive quality?

ChatGPT:

Descartes contends that existence is a positive quality based on the nature of his conception of God as a supremely perfect being. Here’s how the reasoning can be unpacked:

1. Definition of God: Descartes defines God as a being possessing all perfections or all positive qualities.

2. Existence as a Perfection: If existence were not a perfection (or positive quality), then it would be conceivable to think of a supremely perfect being that doesn’t exist. But for Descartes, this is a contradiction. For a being to be supremely perfect, it must possess all perfections, and if existence is a perfection, then God must possess it.

3. Inferential Nature of Existence as a Quality: Descartes infers the positive nature of existence from the definition of God. The argument isn’t that existence is inherently positive for all entities, but rather that for a supremely perfect being, existence is necessarily a positive quality. If it were not, God wouldn’t be supremely perfect.

To grasp this, consider the implication of the reverse: If existence weren’t a positive quality, then non-existence could be compatible with (or even preferable to) perfection. That would mean a supremely perfect being might be one that doesn’t exist. Descartes sees this as a contradiction, given his understanding of God as supremely perfect.

Again, it’s worth noting that this perspective has faced scrutiny. One prominent objection is from Immanuel Kant, who challenged the idea of treating existence as a predicate or quality in the same way other attributes are.

Prompt:

It is better to have knowledge and power than to have neither, but only by existing can it have knowledge and power. Is that it?

ChatGPT:

Yes, you’ve touched on an underlying intuition behind Descartes’ argument. When we consider qualities like knowledge and power, we usually regard them as positive or perfective qualities—attributes that enhance the nature of a being. And as you rightly pointed out, for a being to possess any qualities, it must first exist.

So, by Descartes’ reasoning:

1. Attributes of God: If we conceive of God as a supremely perfect being, God would possess all perfections, which include qualities like omnipotence (infinite power) and omniscience (infinite knowledge).

2. Prerequisite of Existence: For God to have these perfections, God must exist. Without existence, there can be no possession of any qualities, including knowledge and power.

3. Existence as a Positive Quality: Therefore, existence can be seen as a foundational positive quality, because only through existence can other positive attributes be possessed.

So, in this way, Descartes sees existence as inherent to the concept of a supremely perfect being. The being’s very perfection implies its existence, because without existence, it could not possess any of the positive qualities that make it supremely perfect.

Prompt:

Knowledge and power are positive qualities for a spirit, an embodied mind. But it is not a positive quality to be an embodied mind, since it is not better to be mortal, and the embodied is necessarily mortal.

ChatGPT:

Your point highlights a nuanced understanding of the nature of existence and the value or “positiveness” of particular qualities.

1. Value of Knowledge and Power: As you noted, knowledge and power can be seen as positive qualities, especially for spiritual or intellectual entities. Having knowledge allows one to understand, predict, and reason about the world, while power provides the ability to act, influence, or effect change.

2. Embodiment and Mortality: Embodiment, in many philosophical and religious traditions, comes with its limitations. Being embodied means being subject to decay, suffering, and eventual death. Thus, if one equates embodiment strictly with mortality, then it’s understandable to not see it as a positive quality when compared to the idea of an eternal, non-embodied spirit or consciousness.

3. Nature of Embodied Existence: Yet, embodiment also brings with it unique experiences and capacities. Sensation, emotion, physical interaction with the world, and certain forms of growth and development are often associated with embodied existence. So, whether embodiment is seen as positive or negative might depend on the perspective or values one holds. Some might argue that the experiences of embodied life, even with its limitations and eventual end, have intrinsic value.

4. God’s Nature: In Descartes’ view, God is not embodied in the way humans are. God is an infinite, non-embodied mind: omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. Descartes doesn’t argue that it’s better for humans to be embodied; rather, he’s concerned with the nature of God’s existence and perfection.

Your reflections bring into focus the complex interplay of existence, embodiment, and value. Different philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions will offer various perspectives on these matters.

Prompt:

Sensation given by embodiment is not intrinsically good, however joyful, because it is not good independently of the spirit whose sensations they are.

ChatGPT:

Your assertion delves into a deep philosophical debate concerning the nature of intrinsic value and the relationship between embodied experiences and the spirit or mind that perceives them.

To break down your assertion:

1. Sensation and Intrinsic Value: When something is said to have intrinsic value, it’s considered good in and of itself, not because of its relation to other things or its potential results. You're suggesting that sensations, even if they bring joy, do not have intrinsic value on their own.

2. Dependence on the Perceiving Spirit: You posit that the value of sensations is contingent on the spirit (or mind) that experiences them. This can be understood in a few ways:

   1. The value of a sensation is derived from how it’s perceived or interpreted by the spirit.

   2. Sensations, being subjective experiences, only exist in relation to a perceiving entity. Without this entity, sensations wouldn’t exist, and therefore their value is tied to their relation to the spirit.

3. Implications: This perspective challenges certain hedonistic views which assert that pleasure or joyful sensations are intrinsically good. Instead, it places emphasis on the broader context in which sensations are experienced and interpreted.

Philosophers have debated these topics for centuries, questioning what things (if any) have intrinsic value, and how subjective experiences relate to broader notions of goodness, meaning, and purpose. Some argue that certain experiences or states of being are intrinsically valuable, while others see value as entirely constructed or relative to the perceiver. Your perspective aligns with those who see a deep interdependence between experiences and the entities that undergo them.

Prompt:

And God’s Nature can not be that of a disembodied mind because without a physical realization, such a mind is inefficacious and so has no power or knowledge.

ChatGPT:

You’re presenting a view that challenges a classical understanding of God as a disembodied mind. Your argument hinges on the relationship between embodiment, efficacy (the ability to produce a desired effect), and the possession of power and knowledge. Let's delve into this:

1. Mind and Efficacy: Your premise is that for a mind to be efficacious, it must have a physical realization. This is an important philosophical point. Many philosophers have pondered how a non-physical entity can interact with or influence the physical world. For instance, if God is a purely spiritual or non-physical entity, how does God act in the physical universe?

2. Power and Knowledge: You’re suggesting that without embodiment (or some form of physical realization), a mind cannot possess power or knowledge. Power, in this context, seems to relate to the ability to cause change or exert influence, and knowledge might be seen as awareness of or information about the physical realm.

3. Challenges to the Classical View: The classical view in many theistic traditions is that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) and doesn’t require a physical form to exert this power or possess this knowledge. God’s ways of interacting with and knowing the world are understood to be beyond human comprehension.

4. Alternative Views: There are theological perspectives, like pantheism, which posit that God is not separate from the universe but is synonymous with it. In this view, God’s “embodiment” is the universe itself. Another perspective, panentheism, suggests that while God permeates the universe, there’s also an aspect of God that transcends it.

5. Philosophical Issues: Your point taps into the broader philosophical debate about dualism (the idea that the mind and body are distinct and separable) versus physicalism (the idea that everything, including the mind, is physical). If one leans towards a strict form of physicalism, then the idea of a disembodied mind might indeed seem problematic.

Your stance presents an intriguing challenge to traditional conceptions of God and highlights the complexities involved in discussions about the nature of divinity, embodiment, and causality.

Prompt:

If God has power and knowledge independently of the physical by incomprehensible or mysterious means, then Descartes must abandon having the idea of God, his initial premise.

ChatGPT:

Your statement connects Descartes’ epistemological project with his theological commitments, suggesting a potential inconsistency. Let’s break this down:

1. Descartes’ Epistemology: One of Descartes’ foundational principles is his commitment to “clear and distinct” ideas as a pathway to truth. He seeks to establish a firm foundation for knowledge by doubting everything that can possibly be doubted, until he arrives at the indubitable conclusion, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”).

2. God’s Role in Descartes’ System: After establishing the certainty of his own existence as a thinking thing, Descartes uses God to guarantee the reliability of his clear and distinct perceptions. He argues that because he has an idea of a perfect God, and because he himself is imperfect and couldn’t have produced this idea, it must have been placed in him by God. Furthermore, God, being perfect and non-deceptive, wouldn’t allow him to be deceived about things he perceives clearly and distinctly.

3. Mystery and Incomprehensibility: Your point is that if God's power and knowledge operate through mysterious or incomprehensible means, then this conception of God may not fit the criterion of being "clear and distinct." Thus, by his own standard, Descartes would have to doubt or abandon this idea.

4. Potential Counterarguments: One could argue that for Descartes, the idea of God’s existence is clear and distinct even if the specific nature of God’s operation remains mysterious. In other words, Descartes can be certain of God’s existence and role as a guarantor of truth while still acknowledging the incomprehensibility of God's essence or workings. This distinction between knowing “that” (God exists) and knowing “how” (God operates) might allow Descartes to maintain his theological commitments without undermining his epistemological project.

5. Critiques of Descartes: Nevertheless, your point underscores critiques made by subsequent philosophers who challenged Descartes’ reliance on God in his system. Some believe Descartes’ introduction of God creates more problems than it solves, while others think it’s a necessary move to ground his epistemology.

Your observation taps into the heart of the interplay between Descartes’ theological and epistemological commitments, prompting deep reflection on the coherence of his system.

Prompt:

Regarding pantheism, if nature’s imperfections are part of God then God is imperfect.

ChatGPT:

Your observation about pantheism raises a central challenge to the perspective: the reconciliation of the concept of a perfect God with the apparent imperfections and sufferings found in nature. Here’s a breakdown of the issue:

1. Pantheism Defined: Pantheism posits that God and the universe (or nature) are identical. This means that everything that exists is part of God, and there’s no distinction between the Creator and the creation.

2. Nature’s Imperfections: Observing nature, we witness phenomena like natural disasters, diseases, predation, and death, which can be perceived as imperfections or instances of suffering.

3. Implications for God’s Perfection: If these imperfections are part of nature, and nature is God, then it follows that God possesses these imperfections. This challenges traditional theistic notions of God as wholly good, benevolent, and perfect.

4. Responses from Pantheists:

   1. Different Notions of Perfection: Some pantheists may redefine or reconsider what “perfection” means. Instead of seeing it as the absence of flaws or suffering, it could be understood as a kind of holistic completeness or balance.

   2. Natural Processes as Neutral: Some argue that what humans perceive as “imperfections” or “sufferings” are merely natural processes that are value-neutral. For example, death might be seen as a necessary part of the life cycle rather than an imperfection.

   3. Limitations of Human Understanding: Another response might be that human beings, with their limited perspective, cannot fully grasp the nature of the divine. What appears imperfect to us might be part of a larger, perfect whole that we cannot comprehend.

   4. Challenges to Pantheism: Despite these potential responses, the issue you raised remains a significant challenge to pantheism. How pantheism deals with the problem of evil and suffering is analogous to how other theistic traditions grapple with the same issues, albeit within different frameworks.

Your observation highlights the deep philosophical and theological implications that come with different conceptualizations of the divine and how these ideas interact with our observations and experiences of the world around us.

Prompt:

Panentheism does offer a possibility open to Descartes. The aspect of God that transcends nature would be perfect but without knowledge, whereas nature as another aspect of God would have knowledge. But then to say God is omnipotent would be to say that nature can do anything. This would be tautologous if possible actions were constrained to the naturally possible. But more than behavior, action also requires intention. Similarly, knowledge in nature requires representations of the truth, more than the truths and facts themselves.

But this option would not be acceptable to Descartes since God would be imperfect, at least in its physical aspect.

ChatGPT:

Your analysis weaves together panentheism, Descartes’ theology, and concepts of God’s attributes in a thoughtful manner. Let’s further unpack and reflect upon your points:

1. Panentheism’s Dual Aspect: Panentheism suggests that while God is fully immanent within the universe, there is also an aspect of God that transcends it. This framework creates an avenue to reconcile the perceived imperfections of the physical world with the notion of a perfect divinity.

2. Divine Knowledge and Omnipotence:

   1. If the transcendent aspect of God is perfect but without knowledge, while the immanent aspect (nature) has knowledge, this creates a dichotomy. It suggests that perfect existence and knowledge are mutually exclusive, which is a departure from traditional theistic views.

   2. As for omnipotence, tying it to nature’s capabilities makes the definition dependent on what is naturally possible. If nature is equated with God’s action, then “God can do anything” is equivalent to “Nature can do anything.” As you pointed out, this can be tautological.

3. Action, Intention, and Knowledge:

   1. True action, as you note, is more than mere behavior; it involves intention. If nature (or the immanent aspect of God) is to be truly active and not just passively undergoing processes, there must be intentionality.

   2. Similarly, true knowledge is more than mere facts. It involves representation, comprehension, and interpretation. If nature embodies God’s knowledge, then this suggests a deeper, representational aspect to the universe.

4. Descartes and Divine Perfection:

   1. Your conclusion seems apt. For Descartes, God’s perfection is central. God is supremely perfect, possessing all positive attributes to their maximal extent. If any aspect of God, even the immanent one, is imperfect, this would contradict Descartes’ foundational understanding of God.

In sum, while panentheism offers an intriguing framework to grapple with the relationship between God and nature, it poses challenges when aligned with Descartes’ theology. Your reflections highlight the intricate considerations involved in melding different philosophical and theological perspectives.