Descartes’ Trademark Proof of God – Philosophy Tube
How does Descartes try to prove the existence of God in his Meditations?
Metaphysics Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvoAL-KSZ32cX32PRBl1D4b4wr8DwhRQ4
Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thephilosophytube
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
Suggested Reading:
Rene Descartes, Meditations
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy
Jim Cottingham, Descartes
Sponsors!
Scott Eichler
D.j.
Looking Glass Universe
Rich Clarke
Jim Groth
David Stewart
Jason Cherry
Juho Laitalainen
Aaron Priestes
Eric Driussi
Steve Usher
The LitCrit Guy
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘Show your Moves,’ ‘Harlequin,’ ‘Space Fighter Loop,’ Latin Industries’ and ‘Pamgea’ by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
@robertfridjhon550
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Loved this!! My thinking exactly!!!
@bliss45
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Holy shit its you
@davidfescoto3981
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Explain the cake thing, how's that possible?
@IamTanmoy28
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Why am I seeing this. Im an engineering student
@Doronoss
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
it reminds me of me in highschool trying to prove some geometry statement, I know what I'm looking for, so let's write some bulshit and then what I wanted to prove and QED.
But the thing that caught me the most isn't even his first assumption about inherited properties, but his conclusion, because that just gives me the ability to prove anything I want. For example, aliens. Aliens must be real because they planted their existence in my brain therefore they must exist somewhere.
Parallel universes, ability to exceed the speed of light etc etc.
@larryburgess4816
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I'm calling BS. But on the other hand, the church would have hung him if he said there was no god. I have a good test of his theory. Stop teaching children about god and see if god appears in their heads.
@NOT_TheFBI
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
BECAUSE MY TEACHERS TOLD ME TO THINK THIS WAY
@wonderwoman5528
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
This is so useful, thank you!
@coffecupl4776
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
he did WHAT w dogs
@shahsadsaadu5817
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
4:45 This discussion is in parallel with the arguments between Indian philosophers, very specifically between that of the samkhya and advaita tradition who believes in the law of pre-existing cause or sat karya vad, and the materialist school of the carvaka and the logicians(nyayikars) who believed that effect arising as an epiphenomenal quality(asat karya vad or aarambha vad).
@jeremiahmullikin
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Worst philosopher ever?
@ingenuity168
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
💜
@PaolaTheTimeLord
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
in 4:29, that mathematician and music theorist is wrong. the sun and the rain is alive because of its chemical properties. nature by itself is alive. it’s made out of atoms, out of energy. anything with energy is alive whether it speaks/breathes or not. energy is neither created nor destroyed. it’s just there or it’s transferred somewhere else or into something else
@rekall76
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
'the mark of the beast' eh? 🤔
@mrgeiger9877
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
How do we know there is no spectrum of existence?
@gabrielemarogna9444
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Oh damn, this was a long time ago! Super informative though, I think the theatrical aspects of the new videos really gets in the way of information, which means it's great as Entertainment, but I don't think Abigail should address the viewer as "a class of young students", cause this channel really isn't that much about teaching philosophy anymore, at least, so it would seem, you can tell me how you disagree
@KitrinaKanaris
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
This was always my least favorite argument to the point of irrational(?) rage. Thank you for this breakdown! Even though I am seeing it 7 years or so later….
@samgarcia5284
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Sorry, just kidding
@samgarcia5284
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
What came first your face or your pimples?
@MiyamotoMusakaki
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I miss these types of videos when he was at least somewhat normal.
@marcobiagini1878
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation.
Let me show this with an example of emergent property, such as the function of a biological organ, like the heart that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe the reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. Emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems; emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
@agedejong7693
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
i can think of dragons thereforre….
@skepticdank1121
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Aw, so cute. Baby, pimple faced, male presenting Abigail.
@shawncroninger3646
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Where did the thought of God come from?
@citizenschallengeYT
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
What gets me about all this philosophizing is that it happens within such a contrived vacuum. What about Evolution? I mean aren't we biological being. For a biological perspective on human consciousness listen to Mark Solms and Antonio Damasio talks.
On the philosophical level,
The missing key is appreciating the Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.
@IanBenedict
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Everybody gangsta til Descartes starts dissecting living dogs
@annapotratz6843
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I have three days to do a philosophy paper and am using it as an excuse to binge Abby's oldest videos
@matissefanfulla687
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
my sac is on monday and i'm wayyyyy too dumb to understand this
@StrangeCornersOfThought
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
You were a brilliant woman even back then.
@johnnyscifi
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Awww, so cute. Spotty, and all!!!
@nobody8328
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
💖
@dckfg01
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Just boring.
@2tehnik
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I don't think those are good rebuttals honestly.
The PSR is something Descartes takes to be true a priori. I don't know what he's referencing when talking about Hellium and Hydrogen having different properties, but I'd find it to be very strange if their properties weren't (theoretically) grounded on what they atomically consist in and what their structure is.
And I can see one denying the "threefold" division of reality, but I also fail to see how the argument fails. Even if one were to say that all there are are substances, how can you explain the fact of an idea of an infinite/perfect being other than that such a being exists?
@gofar5185
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
… doesnt matter what every living entity choose to do… at the end of a given material time, each entity inquire about the cycle of birth and death…
@gofar5185
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
philosophy tube… my spiritual teacher in boddhidharma teachings and spiritual master in yoga say: it is no question of believe or not… ETERNITY IS TRUTH… TRUTH IS ETERNITY… it is not a problem of believing or not believing… freedom to every being is given to search the truth of all seen and unseen… the material body that turn to dust … the spiritual body that exist and is ever-existing…
@michan8093
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
omg thanks olly. Longtime watcher, decided to study philosophy, had to google something, cause I´m to lazy to read and you came up hahahahah <3<3<3
@richardfarr3552
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Nice. Small point: it's John Cottingham.
@justisewatt3686
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
The only thing that I could not logically defend was that God existed, because he "trademarked" himself on us. To his defense, where did we even get the idea of God? It has to be from him himself
@georgepantzikis7988
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
After this argument his point is basically:
1. Triangles exist
2. Therefore God
@e.k.o5412
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Olly is so cute here aaawwwww
@redsparks2025
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I often wonder if Descartes realised his philosophical insight and teaching of methodical doubt was so powerful that it could be used to disprove the existence of God and then thought sh..t I had better use it to prove the existence of God otherwise I am in big trouble with the Inquisitors.
@rolland890
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
Damn Philosophy Tube was different back then…
@williamcrawford7621
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
In defense of the proof, I find that the critics misunderstand Descartes's principles. The causal adequacy principle seems to be true, even in the cases of helium and cake. According to Descartes, hydrogen would be just as real as helium, as both are nonliving, finite substances. The same can be said for the equivalent "realness" of the ingredients to the cake. Sure, the properties have changed between hydrogen and helium, as well as between ingredients and cake, but as you yourself said, limited substances are allowed to altar properties, so there is not yet any contradiction. To address the objection Descartes received contemporaneously, I am sure modern materialists would consider life to be merely another property, in which case there is no contradiction. Yet, even if one does believe that life should rank higher in formal reality than nonlife, there should still be no problem since. We can observe that life is necessary to create life. Frogs do not spontaneously spawn from nonliving water, as some people used to imagine, but rather they inherit the property of life from previous generations of frogs, just as helium inherits its subatomic particles from hydrogen. Evolutionarily speaking, the first frogs inherited life from whatever species preceded them, just as hydrogen would have obtained its subatomic particles from the energy the pervaded the universe after the big bang, since E=mc^2, i.e. matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. To summarize, the objectors can only point out a change in properties, not a change in substance. Thus, the principle remains uncontradicted.
Which brings us to the second principle: The levels of reality principle. Admittedly, it seems absurd to that reality is on a dial, which is why I have often seen the word "reality" translated as "perfection." Certainly we can all agree that there are levels of perfection. Thus, both principles are preserved.
@cyntiaaurora
March 18, 2026 at 12:59 pm
I could weep with joy – this channel is the only thing that can potentially save my A-level.
Comments are closed.