Beginning with the premise of the nature of man, Descartes argues that he is one who thinks (2, p. 23). Due to being a creature who thinks, Descartes comes to the conclusion that he is performing the action of acquiring knowledge (2, p. 30). This argument is good because human beings are rational creatures, which can be proven. Unlike animals, human beings are rational in terms of their nature and their ability to think of more complex things, such as knowing what time of the day it is. If one were to ask a dog what time of day it is the dog may respond with a bark or nothing at all; however, that is …show more content…
God is a being who is abstract. Basic thoughts, such as the color of the sky or the smell of a rose, are things that can be seen and sensed, whereas God is invisible to the human eye. Descartes realizes that he is a being who is rational and argues that God, a being who lacks in nothing and is supreme perfection, must have placed the idea of himself in Descartes’ mind (2, p. 33). This is a good argument if God is being who is abstract, the doctrine or teaching of God is not something that can be easily learned. One has to comprehend why and how God’s attributes differs from those of human beings. For example, a cake may be a good that provides pleasure and some form of nourishment for the body, but indulging in cake for every meal is disastrous to one’s health. God possesses attributes, such as goodness and perfection, that are of a different standard from human beings. If they were not different, human beings would all be gods and Descartes suggests that this cannot