I imagine God not existing all the time...

So in considering the ontological argument I find the weakest point to be the fact that Descartes states that "I am not free to think of God without existence (that is, a surpremely perfect being without a supreme perfection)" (7:67). There are a few problems I find here. First off, unlike Descartes finds, I am pretty sure I can think of God as not existing. I do it all the time. I realize here that he draws on the fact that the idea of God is that of a surpremely perfect being. Furthermore, that his perfection entails existence as part of its essence, for to not exist would be to lack a perfection. However, why does perfection necessarily have to include existence. Descartes seems to just throw it out there that existing is a perfection, but does not really give any reason for it. However, even if we grant that existence is a perfection and thus to think of a surpremely perfect being, God, would be to think of him existing, what is to say that we actually do have the thought of this surpremely perfect being. I do not find it strange to argue that the perfection most attribute to God is actually beyond our grasp. To think about God being everywhere at all times, existing for eternity, omnipotent, omniscient, surpremely good, and other such ideas people label God with, seems like a pretty impossible task. We cannot begin to comprehend what eternity even means. We can state that to be perfect means to have these attributes, but at the same time we most likely do not even know some of the properties that a perfect being would have, and we could equally be mistaken about others because our intellect is not advanced enough to comprehend perfection. For us, surpreme perfection is just a term. Thus, even if we cannot think of a surpreme being without thinking it must exist, why can't we be mistaken about this? Who says we can even think of God, a supreme being? If we cannot even think of God the argument clearly fails. Thus I find Descartes' weakest point in his ontological argument to be the necessity of existence in perfection without a good argument behind it, and the assumption that we can even think of a perfect being and be correct about it.

Come on baby light my fire...

In the fifth meditation the meditator comes to the conclusion that certain properties of extension are "true and immutable natures" whether they exist outside of her or not. Furthermore, these properties are not an invention of her own intellect. Her reason for concluding this can be found in the consideration of a triangle. A triangle may or may not exist outside of the intellect; however, when considered one notices certain properties of the triangle such as its three angles equaling two right angles. These properties are clearly recognized even if one never thought about them before when imagining a triangle. These properties are what Hatfield calls discoveries as opposed to inventions. That is, these properties are found in a triangle whether one wants to see them or not and whether or not the triangle actually exists.

The discovered properties of a triangle can be compared to the warmth of a fire. The properties come to the meditator whether she wants them to or not in the same way a fire gives her warmth without her choice. The meditator may choose to not think of a triangle at all by thinking on other things; however, when the triangle is in her imagination the properties come to her. The connections found in the triangle reveal themselves to the meditator clearly and distinctly.

The meditator, we can agree, may think of a triangle whether it exists outside of her or not, in the same way she can think of a chimera, which clearly does not exist outside of her. The point to be proven is that the properties of the triangle are not inventions. The idea presented above is that since the meditator has no choice but to see these properties they could not have been invented in her intellect, rather the properties were discovered and furthermore must have preceeded her thinking of the triangle. Not only does this show that uninvented properties may be found whether or not the object of the idea exists outside the intellect, but also it gives a more concrete idea of what it is to have a clear and distinct idea.

I don't know if there is a fire in the room or not, but that definitely makes me feel warm inside...