From Descartes’ perspective, nature is a representation of God; therefore, God must intrinsically exist, inasmuch as he, too, is a product of His own creation. Descartes was one of many philosophers who fully supported this argument in support of God’s existence, contending that the external world is the ruling force behind the presence of all beings.
Descartes’ assertions, as portrayed within the literary boundaries of Meditations on First Philosophy, were founded not in cosmological or ontological arguments but rather in teleological debate, inasmuch as the philosopher believed hat there has to be an omnipotent entity responsible for all the purpose and order that is found within natural existence and, thereby, stimulating a sense of wonder about the world.
One of the primary reasons why Meditation III brings forth such a sense of wonder is because Descartes’ philosophical writings followed a very distinctive trail, one that pursued a path of purity and sincerity. He believed deeply in the value of ethics as it related to humans within the natural world, and his concept of forming an adequate ethical code was thought to be the only way in hich people could truly base their value system.
Within this natural world of which he spoke, Descartes theorized that knowledge was the ultimate controller of the environment, thus supporting the teleological argument as proof of God. He persevered and postulated as to how he could at last seal the overwhelming gap that existed between thought and action. It was through his writings that Descartes exercised the possibility that all thought and action are interconnected, bringing to mind the view of science and how it undoubtedly demonstrated the same evidence.
Characteristic of humanity’s constant quest for the oncept of God’s existence, the journey of understanding has come to represent myriad things to myriad people, ultimately rendering any universal explanation virtually impossible. The problem with such sought-after meaning is attempting to successfully pinpoint a single yet comprehensive connotation to its concept; however, this cannot be achieved as long as any two individuals harbor decidedly different interpretations.
I shall now close my eyes, I shall stop my ears, I shall call away all my senses, I shall efface even from my thoughts all the images of corporeal things, or t least (for that is hardly possible) I shall esteem them as vain and false; and thus holding converse only with myself and considering my own nature, I shall try little by little to reach a better knowledge of and a more familiar acquaintanceship with myself” (Descartes PG).
Inasmuch as Descartes provides a naturalistic theory for God’s existence, which is based upon human nature’s philosophical reasoning, this form of mitigated conviction is what essentially supports his stance on God’s existence through teleology. When discussing alternate restriction on philosophical position, it is important to consider the undamental basis of Descartes’ principles as a means by which to ascertain a clear and concise impression of the philosopher’s intent.
Indeed, it can readily be argued that Descartes held a strong belief in universal infiltration of one’s existence; however, it was also quite obvious that he parted ways with myriad other theorists when it came to the issues of proof of God by any other explanation than teleology. Once an individual realizes that thoughts can connect form as well as ideas and that everything in the universe is vibrating energy, then one is able to grasp the rational oncept that God truly does exist.
I ought in no wise to doubt the truth of such matters, if, after having called up all my senses, my memory, and my understanding, to examine them, nothing is brought to evidence by any one of them which is repugnant to what is set forth by the others. For because God is in no wise a deceiver, it follows that I am not deceived in this” (Descartes PG). With this internal insight, one can better attune to the natural balance of which all entities are a part, striving to bring a sense of balance and harmony within.
All of this is readily ccomplished by focusing upon what one wants to envision, as well as the belief that without God’s existence there would be no tangible world. The ways in which Meditation III has encouraged a sense of wonder about the world is through Descartes’ lucid images. The way to accept God’s existence is not shown through emotions but through the Higher Mind, through the faculty of intrinsic belief. Feelings can be misleading for they are often nothing more than reactions from the lower self.
As an example, even a sentimental emotion disguised as love can be an improper stimulus for action. A strong personal desire can also evoke an emotional response, which would be interpreted as a divine signal to move toward the goal, even while the higher Mind is suggesting a different plan of fulfillment. From this point, one may perceive that the mind rather than emotions represents the path of divine guidance; however, the mind, too, may represent a pitfall with regard to mental reasoning and analytical thinking. Hence there remains only the idea of God, concerning which we must consider whether it is something which cannot have proceeded from me myself.
By the name God I understand a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence, from what has been already said, we must conclude that God necessarily exists” (Descartes PG).
Descartes illustrates how human beings are the very source of thought, the eternal connection to the divine intelligence that is inside, in front of and behind all orm. Our willingness to say yes, to be positive, unafraid to take the next step, to go with our internal intuition is all part and parcel of what God has created within the scope of nature, bestowing the power to co-create with that divine intelligence as a universal essence.
When assessing the critical components of utilizing teleology as a means by which to prove God’s existence, it is important to also look at oneself as but a minute element in the overall scheme. “From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it s composed of mind and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception” (Descartes PG).
Also important to remember is that in accordance with the teleological argument, one’s subconscious mind has the duty to manifest whatever the conscious mind puts its attention upon. God is an entity of His own artistic creation; thus, His existence is a truth for the very reason that it was His efforts that enabled all other entities to exist, as well. Also known as the design argument, one can readily contend that nature is superior to art; as such, nature represents no less a form of divine art.