Transcript (edited for clarity):

Episode I: Theodicy

[00:00] Genie: Descartes claims, "But the light of nature has revealed that there is at least as much in the complete efficient cause as in its effect. For where could an effect get its reality, if not from its cause?” This quote seems to explore causal relationships in the light of nature argument, similar to what Aquinas says about objects in motion. He says that there must always be a precursor to the object that was set in motion, but if we trace that thought back to its origins, we arrive at the idea that there must have been a first mover, which he claims to be God. 

[00:35] Henry: These arguments are very similar, but Aquinas bases this idea on the laws of physics and his observations in the world, whereas Descartes sees it more as a universal truth, that is true, whether or not we actually observe it, because the light of nature has revealed it, and it's so self-evident that Descartes can't but not object to its truth. 

[01:03] Genie: And to me, the appears to touch on that idea that there must have been a predecessor to God, as surely there must have been a mover before him, some divine being that's more powerful, more perfect than God. and so the cycle continues. 

[01:17] Henry: This raises the necessity of getting rid of the premise of causality in order to land on God. And I think Descartes fails to address this in some way, because he doesn't really talk about where God could have come from, but ultimately, I don't think that's extremely important, because if he can ultimately prove God's existence through other means, and that the attributes of God must include having all perfections in being good and being infinite, then by means of those attributes being true, God is the cause of everything and has no cause.

[02:04] Genie: And ultimately, I think what this does is really outline the fact that if  there is an existence of an evil demon in the first place, or even if God himself is that evil being, we should consider the existence of the light of nature itself as also being deceiving an evil under the same notion that God or an evil demon could be deceiving these realities in the first place. 

[02:27] Henry: Right, yeah, that's definitely something that could take place if we look at the argument for God's existence and consider all of the holes in the argument, such as the nature of the light of nature as a bringer of subjective truth, and not objective truth, because if you think about it, the light of nature is just giving Descartes ideas that are unique to his perception in the sense that he himself cannot but believe in them. Whereas if you think about a god, God must universally exist by definition. So even if you have your subjective truth proving God's objective existence, since it's under the umbrella of subjective logic, then God's existence is subjective as well, which opens the possibility for an evil demon existing as well in the subjective sense. 

[03:36] Genie: Yet Descartes claims that the light of nature has essentially enlightened him to know that there is an existence of divine and of an all perfect all-powerful being, so this fallacy here leads him to believe that God must exist in the first place, and this is where the ontological problem really comes into play because his assumption that God exists is banked on God's existence in being enlightened by the knowledge that God exists, and so many philosophers have argued that this reasoning in and of itself is is circular, and therefore is not sound.

[04:14] Henry: Yeah, and I think you can slightly explain this away by saying, oh, Descartes is just looking for a subjective truth, and that's kind of what I was saying. But ultimately, when you look at the nature of the work Descartes is publishing, he's trying to give people objective truths. He has published his work so that other people can agree with him on the existence of God, so in that sense by sharing his subjective belief in God and his subjective proof of God's existence, by sharing that, he is not ensuring that other people will have the same subjective belief in God and subjective proof of God’s existence, because ultimately he hasn't shown the light of nature to be a universal mechanism, because honestly, it's pretty difficult to clearly and distinctly perceive these arguments in the same way that Descartes does. So if that is one of the main mechanisms that's functioning, it proves to be extremely difficult to ultimately prove God's (objective) existence. 

[05:20] Genie: Absolutely, I agree with that, and getting to the idea of the light of nature, Descartes in his third meditation states that, quote, "when I say that nature teaches me something, I mean just that I have found a spontaneous impulse to believe it, not that the light of nature reveals that things truth to me. There is an important difference when the light of nature reveals something to me, such as that my thinking implies my existing, that thing is completely beyond doubt, since there is nothing as reliable as the light of nature by means of which I could learn that the thing is not true.” And this is where I think we can really get down to the idea of trust and relative truth, and also accepting general truths.

[06:05] Henry: Yeah, so this idea of the light of nature being a subjective truth or like a truth that's from perspective and experience versus an objective truth, which is a truth that can be verified by facts and universal logic, independent of individual perception, and also true regardless of beliefs or interpretations. It's clear that Descartes's argument for God is a subjective truth, and because of that, the evil demon problem doesn't have to be solved. We don't need to know if there is an evil demon or not controlling our thoughts, because that's a false dichotomy. Objective truth isn't attainable I mean, as far as we know, right? And it can only be based on the subjective truth of God's existence. And since that's under the umbrella of the objective truth of God's existence, as it is supposed to be by definition, is under the umbrella of a subjective truth of the logic that proves it, it is still subjective. So really you can have subjective truth with or without an evil demon existing.