- Next, I realized that there was nothing in these geometric proofs that could guarantee the actual existence of their objects. For example, while I could clearly see that the angles of a given triangle must add up to two right angles, this didn’t confirm that any actual triangle existed. On the other hand, when I examined the idea of a Perfect Being, I found that the existence of such a Being was as integral to its idea as the sum of the angles in a triangle is to its definition, or the equidistance of all points on a sphere’s surface from its center. Therefore, it’s at least as certain that God, as this Perfect Being, exists, as any geometric proof can be.
- In the next place, I perceived that there was nothing at all in these demonstrations which could assure me of the existence of their object: thus, for example, supposing a triangle to be given, I distinctly perceived that its three angles were necessarily equal to two right angles, but I did not on that account perceive anything which could assure me that any triangle existed: while, on the contrary, recurring to the examination of the idea of a Perfect Being, I found that the existence of the Being was comprised in the idea in the same way that the equality of its three angles to two right angles is comprised in the idea of a triangle, or as in the idea of a sphere, the equidistance of all points on its surface from the centre, or even still more clearly; and that consequently it is at least as certain that God, who is this Perfect Being, is, or exists, as any demonstration of Geometry can be.