So I was thoroughly dissappointed when I read Meditation 5. I was under the impression that he was going to go deep into the analyzation of the existence of God, but he simply stayed on the surface with basic obvious conclusions while repeating himself over and over again. "But once I perceived that there is a God, and also understood at the same time that everything else depends on him, and that he is not a deceiver, I then concluded that everything that I clearly and distincly perceive is necessarily true." I'm going to break this into pieces, so first I'll go over "But once... that he is not a deceiver." First of all, he doesn't know this for a fact. No one knows this for a fact because no one has actually had an interaction with or has seen god. He bases the existence off God off of the mechanics of nature and a few ideas he has in his head. There is no real hard evidence that God exists so he can't be so sure of that statement. Now I'll go over "I then concluded... is necessarily true." What he's saying there is one of the most obvious things I've ever heard. What he is saying is things that I know are true, are true. Thats like looking at a tree outside and saying, "That's a tree," and in turn feeling smart since you came to that conclusion.

I was hoping for him to look deeper into the existence of God and question it and analyze it for what it's worth. Instead, he went over how his own thoughts ideas deem that God exists. Not impressed Descartes, not impressed.

Random Philosophy Thoughts

So, I presented an idea about how "God" could actually mean mother nature, then Mark and Keith both had equally logical ideas about how the same reading could not mean this but instead mean that. So I want to express how frustrating it is to think about all this, come up with ideas listen to other peoples ideas, think about what was known and not known in there time, think about what was popular/accepted thoughts as opposed to unpopular/forbidden thoughts at that time, discuss all our thoughts about their thoughts, change our thoughts, talk about our changed thoughts, then in the end, not even know if we are right about those thoughts, or more simply, close to what the actual thoughts were. What the flip???