Throughout his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes suspends faith in all material and metaphysical substance before reconstructing from the fundamental element of existence of the thinker, ultimately concluding that God exists alongside material things and that the soul and body are distinct. However, the transition from the existence of the thinker to the existence of genuine material beings requires an extremely powerful God who is not a deceiver. Descartes states in Meditation I that "since deception and error appear to be imperfections, the less powerful they make my original cause, the more likely I am so imperfect as to be continually deceived." [1] To establish some trust in the external world, it is imperative that Descartes prove the existence of God, and he attempts this feat in three distinct places in his famous Meditations on First Philosophy. In Meditation III, Descartes argues that the thought of an idea requires a cause, which must have a formal reality greater than the objective reality of the idea: this is considered Descartes' first argument for the existence of God in this article . Descartes' first argument for the existence of God is based on an enigmatic conception of an "idea" and how the thinker can understand incomprehensible ideas. However, if we are to accept Descartes' questionable claim that the thinker can "understand" the infinite qualities of God, then it would be possible for the thinker to reconstruct an artificial notion of God. Ultimately, Descartes' first argument for the existence of God will be proven wrong, forcing readers to rely on his next two arguments to prove the existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Descartes' first argument for the existence of God is reconstructed below, preceded by two crucial axioms and two definitions that support the premises of his argument. Descartes' first argument for the existence of God Axiom 1: Something cannot arise from nothing (40). Axiom 2: There is at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause (40). Definition 1: The objective mode of being belongs to ideas by their nature; the formal way of being belongs to the causes of ideas (42). Definition 2: God is an infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful substance… (45).Premise A – From axiom 2 and definition 1: For a given idea to contain this or that objective reality, it must surely derive from some cause which contains at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea (41).Premise B – From Axiom 1: If the objective reality of an idea cannot come from me, it must come from something else (41 ).Premise C – From Definition 2: The ideas of God's attributes are such that they could not have come from me (45). Premise D – They must have come from God; therefore, God exists (45). Descartes is careful to defend himself against accusations of "thinking something into existence", as he appears to do in his Ontological Argument in Meditation V. Descartes writes that "the nature of an idea is such that, in itself, it requires no formal reality if not that which derives from my thinking (41). Descartes assumes that thinking about an idea does not immediately give that idea a formal reality. However, as reconstructed in the previous argument, thinking about an idea requires a cause , which must have more reality than the idea (from Axiom 2) and must be a formal reality (from Definition 1). Descartes does not think of God, but conceives the objective ideas that are the attributes of God – infinity, eternity, immutability, omniscience, omnipotence etc.which could not possibly come from him or from other corporeal bodies around him, because nothing on earth possesses these attributes. Therefore, Descartes concludes that God must necessarily exist. Especially when compared to Descartes' two subsequent arguments, his First Argument for the Existence of God is seemingly incontrovertible. However, although Descartes' first argument for the existence of God is inductively valid, it is not valid. Descartes' notion of an idea, as well as how one conceives of that idea, will be questioned with reference to Premise C. Thus, Premise C will be questioned on the basis of our ability to artificially construct ideas of supreme perfection for arrive at an image of God. Despite Descartes' more operational approach – conceiving the attributes of God rather than God himself – it still seems impossible that anyone could have even an objective idea of ​​these immeasurable attributes of God, which could invalidate premise C. Infinity, eternity, omniscience and omnipotence are impossible to conceive, even in an objective mode of thought, because they do not exist on Earth. Since Descartes has already suspended faith in the external world through Meditation III, he could not expect to find such qualities around him and must instead rely on the knowledge of his own existence. Descartes himself claims to be manifestly imperfect, so these notions of perfection cannot be understood. It seems that Descartes professed complete knowledge of the infinite, immutable, and omnipotent nature of God when all he truly possessed was a minor apperception that extended little beyond simple knowledge of the words "infinite," "immutable," and "omnipotent." Descartes responds to this objection with one of the most controversial and enigmatic statements of all his Meditations on First Philosophy: it does not matter if I do not understand the infinite, or that there are further attributes of God that I cannot in any way grasp, and perhaps I can't even reach it in thought; for it is the nature of the infinite not to be understood by a finite being like me. It is enough that I understand the infinite and judge all the attributes that I clearly perceive and know imply a certain perfection (46). Descartes, in fact, admits that he only possesses a very rudimentary understanding of the attributes of God, which does not allow him to completely "grasp" his ideas. According to John Cottingham, Descartes believes that "one can know or understand something without fully grasping it: 'Just as we can touch a mountain with our hands but cannot embrace it... to know something is to touch it with thought'" (note 46 ) Readers can accept this argument as a sufficient explanation for how Descartes can "understand" the ideas of infinity, immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence - all of which are impossible to encapsulate in one's own thinking - without "grasping" them completely a plausible defense against the objection that it is not possible to possess an idea of ​​the infinite attributes of God. However, Descartes' definition of "idea" complicates this statement: “some of my thoughts are like images of things , and it is only in these cases that the term 'idea' is strictly appropriate – for example, when I think of a man, or a chimera, or the sky, or an angel, or God” (37). In reconsidering the possibility that Descartes understands the idea, or image, of God or His attributes, it is problematic to suggest that he could understand the image of God without fully grasping it. Visualizing an image in the mind typically involves a complete understanding of the object being visualized, and it is unlikely that the infinite attributes of God – much less God himself –.. (21).