The Argument from Adequate Reality

   Warning: The following discusses God, a controversial topic



       Rene Descartes was a 17th century French Philosopher. He is commonly referred to as "The father of modern Philosophy". He contributed so much to science and philosophy, you certainly now more about him than you realize. His most famous principle is that of Cogito Ergo Sum, or, I think therefore I am. I will be discussing one of his arguments for the existence of god, based in the Principle of Adequate reality.

       The principle of adequate reality states: An idea must have as much formal reality as it has objective reality. What does that mean?

1. Formal Reality: The actual reality of the thing, its exemplification in the world
2. Objective Reality: The Contents of the Idea its self, the reality of the objective.

    The most common example of this principle is that of a unicorn. On the PAR in order for us to have the idea of a unicorn, we must have the idea of as much Formal reality as the unicorns objective reality. We have the Idea of a horn (formal) and the idea of a horse (formal). By putting these together we get the idea of a unicorn (objective). On the grounds of this Principle, Descartes felt he could prove that God exists based on the fact we have the Idea of him.


The Cartesian Sketch

       The argument can be sketched as follows: If we have the Idea of God, then there is as much formal reality as Objective reality in the Idea. So if the idea of God were made up, there would be less formal reality  in the concept itself. This, on Descartes view, was due to the fact that no one in a state of not-having the idea of God, could make it up based on the world around him. So to Descartes the only way man could come to the Idea of God is by experiencing the formal reality equal to it, that is; God's existence. I think we can update this argument for today's reasoning by establishing premises in a deductive argument.

The Three Formal Realities

        I contend that we can establish three possible ways that a person could have the Formal reality for any idea they might have:

1. Experience: This one seems obvious, If you experience something, you have the idea of it. This would provide ample formal reality for any idea
2. Impartment: This is to have the Idea 'Imparted' to you. That is to say, given to you by someone else. If someone draws you a picture of spider man, or describes him to you, you now have the formal reality to hold the idea
3. Synthesis: This is to literally 'make up' the idea. You can't however, think of something you have no idea of, go ahead try it. Whatever you think of you would have some prior experience of its parts and you would synthesize them together to get your idea. Think of Spider-man. Someone who doesn't already have the idea can take a spider's abilities, give them to a man, and have the idea. Now someone who has know idea of a spider could never give those abilities to a man. So for someone to have that idea, he either has to be given the idea of a spider or else experience it himself.

Now with these formal realities, lets apply them to the concept of God:

Objection, Impartment: You only have the idea of God because your Parents/Minister/Bible gave it to you etc.

Under this argument this is completely true. However its not problematic. Whether you take the creationist view of mans existence or evolution, either way, there was a 'first man'. So even if we've all just been 'given' the idea of God, the buck has to stop somewhere. Think about it, who could give the first man the idea of God? A less-evolved monkey? Where did he get it? And on and on ad infinitum. It stands to reason someone had to have the first 'idea of God' But how did he get it?
Thus we can discard this Objection.

Objection, Synthesis: You could come up with the idea of God all on your own.

This one, if successful, is problematic. However we have good reason to think it is not. Remember that the Impartment objection fails. So the man to synthesize God had no prior concept of him. That is to say; to take this view, you must believe that a relatively recently evolved human could look around at the world, and add its elements together to arrive at an infinite being. Lets ponder this. It seems easy that he could posit the Mental or 'intelligent' aspect of god, as he is such a being. Then he would add attributes to an abstract concept of man. He has the strength of two men, no three, no four, etc. However, to completely synthesize the Idea of an Infinitely strong being, he could never stop synthesizing. For on our intuitive concept of God, even a being as powerful as 10^100^100 Suns would not be as powerful as god. Immensely powerful for sure, but not to 'God' Status as it is commonly understood. Add to this the concept of a non-spatial and timeless entity, which we have no experience of, and it becomes an arduous and parsimonious belief to hold. The Reply to this is that these properties are merely the negation of finite properties. That is to say, we negate time and space and thus we have the concept of timelessness and spacelessness. This however seems problematic to me. For think of a man with no concept of God at all. If he negates Both time and space, sure he negates them in his head, but how then does he arrive at any coherent concept of what it means to be non-spacial or a temporal with all the other properties? This incoherence of these properties has long been an objection to God By atheists, such as David Hume. However, This only supports this premise as by some fortune, we DO have the idea of God! So I feel, while this will be the most debated, we are justified in rejecting this Objection


Putting it all together:

So we have seen The three formal realities for an Idea. We have seen ways you might come to the idea of God by these formal realities. We have also seen their shortcomings. This leaves one option that must provide for our Idea of god. Our reasoning thus far can be summarized as follows:

1. The Concept of God is due to either Synthesis, Impartment, or Experience
2. It is not due to Impartment or Synthesis.
3. Therefore, it is due to Experience

The only addendum then is that one cannot experience something that does not exist, as that would be a contradiction. So then we can say if we have experienced god, he exists! Now this is a deductive argument, so in order to deny the conclusion you must deny one of the premises. I acknowledge that the debate over synthesis might be so deep that it will be the focus of any case that uses this argument. So unless you're prepared to debate that, I wouldn't use this argument on an Atheist. Stay smart and keep thinking!