Descartes had his axioms all fucked up. The notion of perfection can come from a mind which is imperfect.
Here, Descartes' God argument:
Quote:
1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)
|
Axiom 3 is incorrect. An imperfect being can imagine a perfect being.
This is a perfect example of apologist in the form of pseudo-logic and pseudo-science. Just as an ID proponent uses poor science to try and support god, Descartes uses poor analytical statements to support god. If Descartes and ID proponents were reasonable, they would not need to bend the rules in order to try and scrape together incorrect proofs.
Is presenting tainted evidence logical?