Why doesn't Descartes employ cosmological and teleolgical arguments in his meditation 5?

Question

Descartes was aware of all the usual cosmological and teleological arguments for God, but he doesn't use them anywhere in his Meditations, even though a primary goal of the work was to demonstrate the existence of God. So my question is Why doesn't Descartes employ cosmological and teleological arguments in his Meditations?

Answer 1

Because Descartes primary aim was not to prove the proposition that 'God exists', rather, Descartes aim was epistemological: Descartes wanted a firm foundation for the sciences, based on a priori reasoning - that is, he was seeking a method by which one could always use to obtain knowledge - and by the term 'knowledge' he, like all epistemologist's, mean that in the most strict sense.

The fact, or rather, the alleged fact that Descartes proves Gods veracity as an existent nondeceiving being is just a clever logical-move for him to establish the knowledge-yielding-condition of clear and distinct perceptions.

Remember, Descartes set out in his Discourse on Method and Meditations on First-Philosophy (which is 'Metaphysics and Epistemology') , to deny all that he thought he previously knew - to start anew with a firm foundation. He discovered that the one thing he could not be denied, the one proposition incapable of doubt was 'I exist', after that it was 'I am essentially a thinking substance' and that, following some other proofs', Descartes showed that his clear and distinct perception were psychologically certain for him, and therefore, he was absolutely compelled to believe in proposition formed via clear & distinct perception.

He then prepares a Theological argument for the existence of God, where he deduces that the premises clearly and distinctly lead to the conclusion, so the conclusion must be true - or at least at this point - Descartes is  compelled to believe in the conclusion of his theological argument (technically it is an ontological argument). But, as soon as he is psychological-certain of Gods veracity as a nondeceiving existent beings - that is - as soon as Descartes clearly and distinctly perceives the conclusion to the argment, which means he cannot help but to believe it, that newly discovered proposition ('God exists and is no deceiver'), is epistemologically significant.

Before, Descartes was only absolutely certain of a handful of propositions - but now - after proving the existence of God, he has the divine gaurantee so-to-speak. And, hence, is metaphysically cetain of all of his previous clear-and-distinct (psychologically-certain) propositions...

This is an epistemologically-effort. The proof' of God, however, was merely a step in the argument, an intermediate-conclusion. Other philosophers before, and even afer him, focus on the existence of God as a proposition to prove in itself, for metaphysical reasons (by metaphysical I mean this in the academic sense of 'the fundamental nature of existence and being'). Descartes, on the other hand, had altogether different motives.

Plus, as a footnote, the cosmo argument and teleological-type argument's are not deductive - they cannot be deductively valid - which is the force that Descartes wanted. Descartes wanted to 'know' things in the sense of ' I know that 'such and such' and I cannot doubt that 'such and such''. Or, 'I know that 'p' and I cannot be wrong about 'p''. Descartes wanted strict knowledge, like that featured in geometry and the rest of the mathematical-arts...Philosophy was no different for Descartes...and this is why he didn't emply those other argument-types.

Hope this helped!