Substance

In his third meditation, Descartes seeks to prove that simple truths exist through the idea of an Infinite Being. Because he could not independently conjure the thought of such a thing, he concludes that something of greater reality must have been its origin. But as he transitions into this proof, his definition of God as an infinite substance reminded me of the discussion from the first meditation on composite ideas. He defines God as the infinite substance that he and this idea were created from, but in this statement, the idea of God is identified as a composition of his idea of a substance and infinity, two components that do not both prove adventitious.

Descartes claims that he could not fathom this infinite substance, yet he can obviously fathom a substance, considering he proves himself one in meditation two. The true thing he cannot understand is the idea of infinity. If he would have considered that he could not picture an infinitely cute teddy bear, Descartes would have had to realize that this absurdly adorable bear must have put the idea into his mind, proving the existence of a supreme stuffed bear. Therefore, the adventitious part of an Infinite Being is not the idea of a being but the fact that it has the quality of being infinite. Then, by Descartes reasoning, the only logical conclusion is to then claim that “I” came from something infinite. If we are considering composite ideas, then any infinite _____ could be the adventitious idea that leads to our innate idea of infinity. What leap then obligates “me” to say that the infinite thing was a being, and not an infinite duration of time in combination with an infinitesimally small singularity containing an infinite amount of energy?

Instead, Descartes immediately applies the idea of infinity to his own qualities of a “substance.” He defines God as, “a certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent and supremely powerful.” This originates from his flawed assumption that because he is a substance that “thinks”, “knows”, and has “intellect”, the infinite substance that he imagines must be a "conscious" thing like him. Although he is a thinking thing, this does not mean that his thought, knowledge, intelligence, and the rest of his substance are any more than a series of chemical reactions. If this were true, infinite intelligence and supreme power would then translate into the existence of an infinitely large interaction of matter and energy (intelligence) along with the existence of infinite force such as gravitons, gluons, photons, and bosons (power). Theoretically, both of these situations are just as plausible as Descartes' theory of God and are widely accepted in physics and mathematics today. Seeing "substance" as this collection of matter and energy, the infinite thing that he thinks of would then be better explained by theories such as the big bang or m-theory, proving nothing about a conscious or supremely intelligent being. Therefore, in my mind, his proof does nothing more than use his preconceived belief in God to prove God, something he himself notes as unconvincing in his letter of dedication.