Substance

My ideas of bodies borrows some elements from my idea of myself:

• substance
• duration
• number
• anything else of this kind.

These external ideas and causes are made of substance.

A substance is a thing capable of existing independently.

For example, I think that:

• a stone is a substance
• I am a substance.

I think of:

• myself as a thing that thinks and is not extended [occupy no metaphysical space]
• the stone as a thing that is extended [occupies metaphysical space] and does not think

The two conceptions differ enormously. But they seem to have the classification ‘substance’ in common.

I perceive that:

• I exist now
• I have existed for some time
• I have various thoughts that I can count

These perceptions give me the ideas of duration and number that I can then transfer to other things.

As for all the other elements that make up

The ideas of bodies are made up elements:

• extension [metaphysical space]
• shape
• position
• movement

These are not in me, since I am just a thinking thing. The ideas of bodies are merely modifications or modes of a substance.

Since I am a substance, it seems possible that they are contained in me in some higher form.*

That is, I myself am not extended, shaped etc. But because I am a substance, I am metaphysically one up on these mere modifications.

• This implies that I can contain within me whatever it takes to cause the ideas of them.

External objects come from external ideas, of which the only remaining idea is the the idea of God.

‘God’ means a substance* that is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created myself and anything else that may exist.

I am also a substance having the idea of substance. But it does not explain my having the idea of an infinite substance since I am finite. That must come from some substance that is infinite.

One might say that this is wrong because my idea of the infinite comes from me negating the finite.

I answer that there is more reality in an infinite substance than in a finite one. Hence, my perception of the infinite, i.e. God, is prior to my perception of the finite, i.e. myself.

On the contrary, it:

• is utterly clear and distinct
• contains in itself more representative reality than any other idea
  • that is, it stands for something that is grander, more powerful, more real, than any other idea stands for
  • it is less open to the suspicion of falsehood than any other idea.

This idea of God is true in the highest degree. One might imagine that God does not exist. But the idea of God cannot possibly represent and unreal something .

The idea is utterly clear and distinct.

It does not matter that I do not totally grasp the infinite, or that there are countless additional attributes of God that I cannot grasp in my thought. This is because the infinite has a nature that cannot be grasped by a finite being like myself.

It is enough that I understand what is the infinite. This is enough to make my idea of God the truest, clearest and most distinct of all my ideas.

Here is a possible objection to that line of thought.

Perhaps I am greater than I understand, and will be as perfect as God eventually.

But this is wrong for the following reasons:

1. My knowledge and potentialities are increasing. But these are all irrelevant to the idea of God.

The idea of God contains absolutely nothing that is potential.

2. Even if my knowledge increases forever, it will never actually be infinite since it will never reach the absolute point where it can no longer increase.

God, on the other hand, is actually infinite. Nothing can be added to his perfection.

3. Potential being is nothing; what it takes to cause the representative being of an idea is actual being.

If God didn’t exist, could I exist?

The answer to this will give a new proof of God’s existence.

If God did not exist, from what would I derive my existence?

It would have to come from:

• myself
• my parents
• some other beings less perfect than God