Traditionally, Descartes is well known for being circular in his meditations. However, recently some commentators have been on his side claiming that it was not possible for him to have made such a simple mistake. His reflections can be linked to William Alston's idea of epistemic circularity. From this connection, it is clear that Descartes argument about God's existence is not only circular but viciously circular which means that his case can hardly solve the problematic situation. Descartes argues that for him to trust his reason, he must a have a non-deceiving god, but to conclude the existence of God, he needs to believe his reason. This paper objects Descartes circular argument by discussing the potential responses as well as the problems associated with his case.
Descartes potential mistake in reasoning is attributed to a form of formal or logical circularity called the Cartesian circle which is based on the need for a non-deceiving God to justify how he can have faith in his reasoning. Systematically, Descartes seems to doubt everything that exists until he reflects on the fact that he is a thinking thing which is something that is too evident to doubt. Descartes is led astray by the fact that he fails to trust his reasoning due to the fear that his thinking process, as well as the mind, could be having a problem. Nevertheless, he requires a reason to undertake his project whereby his solution is to conclude that human beings were created by a non-deceiving god who would not have made a mistake in our reasoning when creating us. To prove the existence of this God, he suggests that the thought of his life is enough evidence that he exists because attributing non-existence to a being is unreasonable. He uses a triangle to support his argument, whereby he says that just like a triangle's three sides cannot be separated, a non-deceiving god cannot be separated from being existent. Through this, he makes a conclusion that there exists a non-deceiving god, acquires his reason back and embarks on working on the remaining part of his project.
The Cartesian circle criticizes Descartes proof of the existence of a non-deceiving god by claiming that the logic applied to prove his presence is circular. Descartes contradicts himself by saying that he does not trust his reasoning because he is not aware of being created by a non-deceiving god but still concludes that there exists a non-deceiving god through his thinking. He affirms that without the existence of a non-deceiving god, there is no way to distinguish between individual perception and aspects of knowledge which means a clear and distinct though about the existence of such a god is of no benefit without having the non-deceiving god in the first place. Descartes response to this paradox is to show that the means used to get to a non-deceiving god is different from the reason obtained from the existence of a non-deceiving God.
According to Descartes, some facts can be quickly discovered through intuition whereby an intuition is grasped in a particular cognitive act making it impossible to doubt. He asserts that the mode of learning these intuitions is different from that of learning other things but is well known within ourselves which gives them the title intuitions. He suggests that the reasoning applied in deriving a non-deceiving god is intuition which means that through thinking of a such a god in a cognitive act, we affirm, his existence, making it difficult to doubt. One major problem with Descartes argument is that it is too much reliant on us considering the argument for non-deceiving god as an undeniable intuition which is not. Additionally, there is no formal logic to elaborate on the non-contradiction principle to make it entirely acceptable. By giving explanations for the existence of a non-deceiving god, Descartes proves that the non-existent god is not an undeniable intuition unlike in the non-contradiction principle. He talks about the idea of God as a perfect being, whereby perfection is about existence considering that existence is perfect than non-existence and therefore, God must exist.
If his argument could be intuition, Descartes would write about the existence of a non-deceiving god being evident from the mere thought that such a god exists. On the other hand, it is useless to find a proof for the contraindication principle because it is clear that something cannot exist and fail to exist at the same time. If the non-deceiving god case were placed in the same category with the principle of contraindication, there would be no need to defend it, and he would conclude that a non-deceiving god exists. In this case, he betrays himself by making the non-deceiving god issue, something that requires argument which implies that it is not intuition. His reasoning for god fails to grasp one cognitive act and also fails the test of “apparent at face."
If Descartes’ argument is considered to be an intuition, making the criticisms made towards his argument invalid, the validity of intuitions as valid sources of information remains a question. From the definition by Descartes intuitions are sometimes wrong, and the most important fact is that there is no way to rectify them if there is no outside reason. If he wishes to preserve moral judgment, he needs to acknowledge that intuitions are wrong sometimes or that so many people have wrong intuitions which make the concept useless in obtaining information. In response to this criticism, he could say that moral knowledge cannot be familiar to us as the natural world. Nonetheless, the idea that it is possible to have intuitions concerning moral knowledge makes this objection fruitless because Descartes does not attempt to limit the things that one can have intuitions about when he talks of them as just conventional notions.
Descartes, therefore, concludes that people are just making judgments concerning things beyond their distinction and understanding. In conclusion, Descartes needs to acknowledge the possibility that some intuitions are wrong and therefore his intuition about a non-deceiving god could be entirely wrong which makes his entire project invalid. Although he could manage to get proof to justify his argument as an intuition, those intuitions are not guaranteed to be accurate, and therefore they cannot form a foundation for his project. It is therefore evident that Descartes fails to justify the circularity of his argument which means that the Cartesian objection remains valid. To the human mind, the idea of God shows that the existence of God is the only source of this aspect. On the other hand, the concept of God is a perfect being which without existence would be impossible to perceive.
