“Cogito, ergo sum.” That’s Latin for what the famous words uttered by French philosopher Renee Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” One of the most foundational principles of western logic and philosophy, Descartes’ phrase has actually been misconstrued by many down through the ages.
Contrary to some interpretations, Descartes did not argue that thinking in and of itself leads to existence. Rather, he is saying that the presence of thought would be impossible without existence. In other words, a thing can still exist without thinking. But thought necessitates the existence of a thing. Thought may not be necessary for existence, but it proves existence.
This understanding of thought’s correlation to existence is the basis of the ontological argument for God. For Descartes took his principle of thought=existence one step further. By doing so, he provided one of the most thought-provoking (no pun intended) yet misunderstood arguments for the existence of God in human history.
In Meditations, Descartes endorses the idea that “from the simple fact that I can draw from my thought the idea of anything it follows that all that I recognize clearly and distinctly to pertain to this thing pertains to it in reality…” In other words, it would not be possible to think of something that does not, in some form, exist.
Wait a minute! What about unicorns? If you think of a unicorn, does that mean a unicorn exists? Yes and no. The unicorn may not exist in reality, but it does exist as a mythical creature conceived by an earlier person or society. The concept of a unicorn is very much real, even if the unicorn itself does not exist.
“Well, fine,” argues the critic. “God exists as a concept, but this theory of Descartes’ proves nothing in terms of God’s reality.”
This would be a valid objection, if Descartes stopped at this point. Descartes elevates God to a unique status, one that many critics will not accept. Nevertheless, Descartes’ argument is worthy of our attention.
According to Descartes, everyone can conceive of a Supreme Being, which he calls “God.” The idea of God is, of course, that of a “supremely perfect,” which he understands to be infinite and unlimited. This concept of God closely mirrors the characteristics that would be present in a “Necessary Being,” the reality of which is logically essential for the universe itself to exist.
Like most western philosophers before him and many afterward, Descartes accepts that every thought, action, phenomena requires a cause. Therefore, the presence of the idea of God – an infinite, unlimited, “supremely perfect” Being – in his mind (and the minds of other finite human beings) necessitates an adequate cause to that presence.
Since we, as human beings, are not infinite or perfect, we cannot be the cause of this concept of God. Therefore, the cause must be external to humanity. Accordingly, we come to the logical conclusion that such a “supremely perfect” Being exists – outside of humanity.
To be sure, the theory has some problems, namely the suspect premise that we can deduce the existence of a being from the idea of a being. Moreover, Immanuel Kant argued that a human concept of God can’t automatically establish God’s actual existence.
Nevertheless, Descartes never intended for the ontological argument to be a stand-alone. He understood it as follow-up to the causality argument. What’s more, the ontological argument comports well with the Apostle Paul’s writings in Romans 1-2.
The bottom line is that this is a weak argument for the reality of God, if used to persuade a skeptic or atheist. It is, however, effective in clarifying and strengthening the cosmological and teleological arguments for God.
Brian Tubbs - Brian Tubbs is a minister, writer, and former educator living in Northern Virginia. He writes on personal development, faith, and ...
