In book 3 of his Meditations, Descartes puts forward an argument for God's existence. This argues that God exists from the evidence of the mark of the maker that can be found within us, as Descartes describes it: 'the artisans trademark imprinted on his work'.

This mark is the idea of God's perfection. Descartes argues:

1. I have an idea of a perfect being (God)
2. In every cause there must be at least as much reality as there is in the effect
3. I am imperfect
4. Given that I am imperfect (3) I cannot be responsible for the idea of perfection that I hold (1)
5. Therefore, given that every cause must be at least as great as its effect (2), whatever caused my idea of perfection (1) must be perfect. Therefore a perfect being exists and this is God who created me.

The reasons behind this argument being put forward (aside from the historical context of the time in which Descartes worked) can be seen from the placing of this argument in the overall structure of the Meditations. In book one Descartes has shown that it is possible to doubt everything (demolishing knowledge as it was understood at the time). In book two Descartes, as part of his attempts to build a new system of knowledge, starts on the foundations, and demonstrates an argument for the existence of his mind (the Cogito).

As Descartes is a creationist Christian, before he can move on to proving the existence of the objective world he must first prove the existence of the creator. This fits with his concept of the cause having at least as much reality as the effect. As he follows back the chain of cause and effect Descartes ultimately reaches the point of creation and thus the ultimate cause. This cause is the most real, he argues, as it has no cause and thus cannot be denied or doubted.

Although this argument relies heavily on the thoughts of medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, the clarity of logic of the argument must be admired, and indeed this is one of the arguments strongest points.

However the trademark argument can still be attacked. One argument against it is that how can an imperfect being have an idea of perfection? Descartes could respond to this by pointing out that this was the very argument that he used to deduce the existence of God. This attack of the trademark argument assumes that having an idea of perfection must make the thinker perfect in some way and this is not what Descartes stated.

A more powerful argument against Descartes is that his argument is circular in its logic. Descartes relies upon the existence of a perfect being to place an idea in his head of a perfect being, which in turn leads to the proof of the existence of the perfect being.

The argument from circularity, whilst casting doubt on the logical method of Descartes' argument is still not a knockdown refutation.

It could also be argued that Descartes assumes that his idea of perfection is itself perfect. If there was a flaw in his idea then surely it could have been caused by something less than perfect (for example Descartes himself) and thus would not prove the existence of God? In response to this it can be argued that an idea that relates purely internally (such as the relationship between thinker and meaning) cannot be mistaken (as described in the answer to (a)).

Another point of attack may be that the trademark argument implies that everyone's ideas of a perfect being must have all come from the same source (the perfect being). However, has not history shown us that people in fact have very different ideas of a perfect being, and thus the source cannot be the same? However, again Descartes could defend his argument. He could argue that as ideas are purely internal they could not be communicated and compared between people. Another response might be that as our ideas are purely internal and it is judgement that relates to the external world we could still all have a perfect idea of a perfect being, but have faults in our judgement which explain history.

A further attack proposes that it is possible to have other ideas that are themselves in some way perfect. For example having an idea of a perfectly round circle. The idea cannot be false as is relating to and describing an aspect of perfection. However, this idea does not prove the existence of anything, but merely demonstrates that it is possible for an imperfect being to hold a concept of perfection. If it is possible to hold an idea of a perfect circle, but still be imperfect, surely it is possible to hold a concept of a perfect being whilst being imperfect, without interference from outside the mind?

Again, though, this counter-argument is not a knockdown refutation. The arguments and counter arguments appear to boil down to the question of whether it is possible to prove that God did or did not give you an idea, something which is quite likely impossible to prove.

It would also be possible to attack the argument by attacking some of the logical principles of the argument, such as questioning the relationship between cause and effect. However, this simply leads to further philosophical questions and may form part of an infinite regress.

Lastly, it could be argued that Descartes has not shown how his argument is immune from the interference of the malign genius from his first meditation. Is it not possible that he could be deceived into believing his logic when it may in fact be fatally flawed?

In conclusion to this assessment of the trademark argument for the existence of God we can say that it neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. However arguments against it cannot disprove the argument, so at the very least the argument is a useful and interesting advancement of the discussions regarding one of the oldest questions in western philosophy.

Tutor: Oliver McAdoo MA

WWW www.arrod.co.uk