Chapter 13 The second set of rebuttals was dictated by various theologians and philosophers, collected by the venerable Father Mercena.

gentlemen: To embarrass some of the new giants of this century who dared to attack the Creator of all things, you have undertaken to strengthen his throne by proving his existence, and your plan seems to have been executed perfectly, Well-meaning people hope that henceforth no one will, after careful reading of your Meditations, deny that there is an eternal God through whom all things depend, and therefore we think that to tell you and to ask that you, as we shall hereinafter address It is quite right that you point out some places where such a light has been propagated so that nothing remains, if possible, in your writings that has not been proved very clearly and clearly.For through years of constant meditation you have exercised your mind to such an extent that what others see as vague and unreliable may be clearer to you, and you may use the inspiration of a pure spirit. To grasp them, without seeing what others consider ambiguous, it is better, then, to explain and justify those that need to be explained more clearly and extensively. Five Meditations".

and, when you will satisfy us on this point, we think no one can deny that those reasons which you have begun to infer, for the glory of God and the public good, should be taken as proof. up. First, you'll remember that you've done your best to throw away all phantoms of objects in order to conclude that you're just a thinking thing, for fear that after that you might think people will be able to conclude that You are nothing but a spirit or a thinking thing in fact and not in fantasy.This is not honest and sincere, but merely a mental fiction.That's all we've found worth commenting on from your first two musings.In those two meditations you made it clear that at least what you are thinking is solid.Let's stop here for a moment.So far, you have realized that you are a thinking thing, but you still don't know what this thinking thing is.How do you know that it is not a body that, by virtue of its various motions and contacts, does this action which you call thought?For, though you think you have discarded all kinds of bodies, you can be mistaken in this, that you have not discarded yourself, who is a body.Because how do you prove that an object cannot think, or that certain physical movements are not thinking itself?Why can't the whole system of your body, which you think you have discarded, or some parts of this system, such as those of the brain, contribute to those kinds of movements which we call thinking?You say, I am a thinking thing: but how do you know that you are not also a physical movement or a propelled object?

①Second edition: "You yourself may be an object". Second, from the idea of ​​a Supreme Being (which you think cannot be produced by you), you dare to conclude the existence of a Supreme Being from whom only the ideas in your mind can be produced.Yet we find a sufficient ground in our own minds,1 by which alone we can make this idea, though there is no Supreme Being, or we do not know whether there is one, or we cannot even conceive of its existence.Because, don't I see that since I have the function of thinking, I have a certain degree of perfection? ① "But we find a sufficient ground in our own minds", in the second French edition, "It is as if we did not find a sufficient ground in our minds".

② "Since I have the function of thinking, then" in the second edition of French is: "This thinking me, I". Do I not see others different from me having the same degree of perfection as I do?This justifies me to think of any number of degrees, and to add to the perfection of one degree, to infinity; to which I could forever add and conceive new degrees of heat or light to infinity.Why should I not likewise add any other degree to a certain degree of being which I perceive in myself, and make all the degrees which may be added into the idea of ​​a complete being?But, you say, any degree of fullness or reality in the effect can only be had in its cause before.However, except that we see flies every day, and many other animals (and plants too) are produced by the sun, rain, and earth, there is no life in the sun, rain, and earth, as in these animals, which is more important than life. The degree of any other purely corporeal nature is nobler, so that the effect derives from its cause a reality which is not in its cause.The idea is nothing but a rational being, no nobler than your spirit that comprehends it.Besides, how do you know if this idea is necessarily present in your mind if you have lived all your life in the desert, and not in the company of learned people?Don't people say that the idea comes from your previous thoughts, from your education in books, from discussions with your friends, etc., and not just from your spirit or from a living being? Is it drawn from the Supreme Being of God?So it must be more clearly demonstrated that this idea cannot be in you without a Supreme Being, and then we shall be the first to be convinced by your reasoning, and we shall all throw in the towel.However, it seems clear enough from the fact that the Canadians, Hurons, and other savages have no such idea that this idea arose from the preceding ones; Even from your knowledge of corporeal things; your ideas therefore represent only the corporeal world, which contains all perfections you can imagine, and all you can conclude is that there is a very perfect Physical beings, unless you add something that raises our minds all the way to the awareness of spiritual or non-physical things.We can also say here that the idea of ​​an angel can be in your mind just as well as the idea of ​​a very perfect being, without the need for the idea to be made in your mind by an actual angel, though an angel is more perfect than you. .But3, we have no idea of ​​God, nor of an infinite number, or of an infinite line; although you may have this idea, this number is quite impossible.In addition, to include all other perfections into a single perfection, this kind of unification and simplification can only be done by reasoning intellectual activities, which is the same thing as the unity of universals. , this unity of universals does not exist in things, but only in the intellect, as one sees in the unity of transcendent species, etc.

① "In the education of books", the second French edition is: "From the education received, from the books". ②The Huron people are people located on the shore of Lake Huron between Canada and the United States. ③ "However", the second French version is "But I still have to say". Third, since you don't know for sure that God exists, and you say that you can't know anything for sure, or you can't know anything clearly and distinctly, without first knowing that God exists definitely and clearly , then this means that you do not know that you are a thinking thing, because, according to you, this knowledge depends on the clear knowledge of a God that exists, and this knowledge you do not have in your The places that assert that you clearly know what you are are proven.Furthermore, an atheist who clearly and distinctly recognizes that the sum of the triangles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, though he never believes in the existence of God, because he denies it completely, says that if God exists, there is a Supreme Being and a Supreme Being. That which is infinite in all kinds of perfection excludes all other things, not only all kinds of beings and goodness, but also of all kinds of non-beings. Being and evil.But [actually] there are still many beings and many good, and there are still many non-beings and much evil.For this kind of objection, we think you should give an answer, so that the unbelievers have nothing to refute, and nothing can be used as an excuse for their unbelief.

Fourth, you deny that God is capable of lying or deceiving, although some scholastics, such as Gabriel, Ariminesis, and others, held that , God lies in the absolute sense, that is to say, he expresses something to those who oppose his will and to his decrees and decisions, just as he through his prophets unconditionally The Nineveh said: In forty days, Nineveh will be destroyed. When he said many other things but did not come true, it was because he was not willing to follow his wishes or Follow his instructions.If he hardened the heart of Pharaoh and blinded him, if he put a lying spirit in the prophet, how can you say we cannot be deceived by him?Can't God treat man as a doctor treats his patients and a father treats his children?Either of these often deceive, but always deliberately and beneficially.For, if God tells us the truth without hesitation, how much mental strength would it take to bear it?

① Nineveh was the capital of ancient Assyria. ② Pharaoh is the title of the king of ancient Egypt. How unnecessary, indeed, to conceive a liar God in order to be deceived about what you think you know well and distinctly!Because the reason for being cheated may be on you, although you don't think about it.Because how do you know it's not in your nature to be cheated all the time or all the time?You think you must never have been deceived in what you know clearly and distinctly, and that you cannot be deceived, where did you know that?For how many times have we seen some people get it wrong about something they thought they could see better than seeing the sun?From this it can be seen that the principle of clear and distinct knowledge needs to be explained very clearly and distinctly, so that all reasonable people will not be deceived in the future about what they believe to know clearly and clearly; otherwise, we will not see We can reliably guarantee the authenticity of anything.

Fifthly, The will never fails or fails when it acts according to the clear and distinct light of the mind; then please note that it seems to be deduced from this that the Turks and other infidels are not only infallible in not accepting Christianity and Catholicism, but even in accepting Christianity and Catholicism because they do not know the truth clearly. , is not clear, and thus also makes mistakes.What is more, if this law which you have established is true, it will be allowed to accept very little, for with the clarity which you require in order to make a certainty which cannot be doubted Sex and clarity, we know almost nothing.So, mind you, you want to uphold the truth, but instead of doing the more necessary proof, and instead of supporting the truth, you overthrow it.

Sixth, in your reply to the previous set of objections you seem to have drawn an incorrect conclusion, and your argument is this: We clearly and distinctly understand the abiding, unchanging, true nature of what belongs to , or essence, or form, which may really be said or affirmed to belong to that thing; of its true, abiding and unchanging nature.The conclusion should be this: Therefore, after we have observed what God is carefully enough, we can say or affirm the truth that God's existence is of his nature.This is not the same as saying that God actually exists, but only that he should exist if his nature is possible or not contradictory, that is, God's nature or essence cannot be understood as non-existent, so that if This essence exists, he actually exists.There are other arguments like this one: if there is no contradiction in the existence of God, then the existence of God is affirmative; and there is no contradiction in the existence of God, so and so on.But the problem lies in the minor premise, that is, there is no contradiction in the existence of God. Some of our opponents doubt it, while others deny it.Also, this line of your reasoning is presumed to be correct, namely, after we have known or observed what God is clearly enough; however, this line is not universally agreed upon, since you yourself admit that you But knowing the infinite incompletely.The same should be said of some of his other attributes; for since everything in God is perfectly infinite, what spirit can know a little of God so imperfectly?How can you observe clearly and distinctly enough what God is?

Seventh, we cannot find a single word in your Meditations on the immortality of the soul of man, yet that is what you should chiefly prove, and a very precise argument should be made of it to make those People whose souls are not worthy of immortality feel embarrassed because they deny it and perhaps hate it.But, in addition to this, we are afraid that you have not sufficiently demonstrated the difference between the soul and the body of man, as we have already pointed out in our first opinion, where we still have It may be added, that from this distinction of soul and body it seems impossible to draw the conclusion that the soul is indestructible or immortal; for who knows whether the nature of the soul is limited according to the length of its physical life?And did God ever measure its power and its existence so that it would end with it and its flesh?

These are the things, sir, on which we would like you to shed more light, so that the reading of the Meditations, which we judge to be very fine and very true, may be beneficial to all.That is why, if, when you have solved the problem, after first formulating a few definitions, requirements, and theorems, you then conclude all this geometrically (for which you are very expert) so that It will be a very profitable thing for your readers to be able to see at once, at a glance, what is gratifying, and you to feed their spirits with the knowledge of God.