This is late, but I was thinking about it as I sat in church. Last week we discussed Aquinas and his proofs for God's existence. He believed that the only way we can know what God's qualities are we have to examine what he is not. One thing we discovered he was not is body. God is not like man and therefore does not have a body like man and it is absurd to think of him as body. At church yesterday, the pastor talked about events such as the resurrection of Christ. I realized this and other events that pastors describe as if God were a body. Now that I think about it, it is an important realization because all the qualities we know God to have are called into question if we say God is body. Maybe one day I will have enough standing in the world to be able to tell pastors about this. Everyone should question what they believe to come up with reasonable explanations for it.

Existence: Exclusive to the mind

Descartes says that we think therefore we are. Because we are able to ponder the idea of our own existence or anything for that matter proves that we exist. If I were non existent then there would be no thought. Does this mean that the only thing that exists with any certainty is the mind, and outside of the mind there is only doubt? With no grasp on what, other than self, is real then why bother with rules, regulations, and expectations. If nothing is real for certain then there are no consequences for the things that one does because those things which were done may not have been done at all, or may have been done to non existent things... therefore it yields no consequences. For example: When Dr Layne experiences sleep paralysis she is ,in her head, screaming at her husband to wake up when in reality she has not moved. Her mind made her think that she was yelling but when she awoke she hadn't been, therefore there was no consequence for her action.

Am I missing something?

Descartes says we cannot trust our senses. I understand that our senses are not always right, but if everyone’s senses were wrong, how would we ever know that our senses failed us in the first place--how would we know that we could not trust our senses? Sure we sometimes think we see things that aren’t really there, but afterward we are able to figure out that these things were not real. Through some combination of senses and logic, we get a pretty good picture of the world in our brains.

And if our senses are so flawed, and we can only know our sensory perceptions as they are translated in our brains, how is it that thoughts may serve to prove existence? Our senses are processed in the brain, and our thoughts are a result of our brain, so why is it that we trust our brains on one account but not the other?

If there were a “malin génie” pumping falsities into our heads, why would he even allow us to think he might exist? It would be illogical for someone who wants to control all of our thoughts to allow us to know we’re being controlled.

I don’t think there is any way for Descartes to be certain that we must doubt our senses or our daily lives. In fact, I also don’t think Descartes has any way to be certain about anything he claims. What does he argue makes him capable of certainty in his thoughts? God’s existence. And how does he know God exists? Because he is certain of it.

Unless I’m missing something, Descartes’ argument would seem a lot better to me if his premises were stronger.