Undoubtedly The Cartesian method is the highest peak in the rationalist epistemology of the modern age, there is a before and after the method because it is the foundation of empirical science does not accept the truth only as evidence.
Cartesian metaphysics do not understand and do not think anybody can do, since we would need to submit to God by rational analysis, we would need evidence, let's beliefs, and having tests but if any, would you need faith?, "God is still" one "whose existence can be proven?. All "proofs" of God have something in common: they demonstrate both too and too little, even if it is established (as intended to Descartes) the existence of something perfect, something eternally true, something infinite, something absolute, eternal, etc., are unable to prove that it is a God, at least an anthropomorphic God as understood by most religions, the ideal of human perfection. It is not known which is perhaps not only a being or reality, how do know that God is a subject or object of study, not only as a principle but as something other than nothing?. I definitely think that every concept of God is the object of faith rather than of thought or better explained, God is not subject because no one knows of its existence or its nonexistence, and both can only exist through faith so that we can only find the intangible come from experience. Something that is the subject of faith and is tested for existence no longer a matter of faith and becomes an object of study, as Descartes said in the Evil Genius Hypothesis ending with methodical doubt. Descartes is clear to distinguish the "God genius" of the "Christian God" that always preaches kindness and love. But how is that test that is not experienced?, The "supreme being" can not be studied and much less subject, not the subject because their existence is not asserted or refuted, it is not under consideration because we can not experiment with. The "existence" or "non-existence" of God should be checked, no show, you should check, not tested. All this boils down to two choices to believe or despair, despair and disbelief reach, renounce salvation or believe, because as Kierkegaard said: God is the only being who can be quite satisfying our hope. God is subject only sense to another subject and never in an absolute sense, therefore can only exist for a being I call absolute subject. (For Descartes cogitans could be the answer, the thinking substance) God alone is God's way and so is the opposite of absurdity or despair, as previously explained.
can not know if God exists, if there would be the answer to our existence, the validity of the existence of truth and goodness, but my God does not answer for my existence, my answers the world is not responsible for my truth, I owe to my thinking and that there must be true just for me and obviously still does not respond to kindness, we call that hope takes faith to wait. Not believing in God is not the same as denying God. The lack of belief does not mean belief in absence. To show God or to prove the nonexistence God takes faith, to God what we need for salvation, if we are saved "We still need to believe in God," We are men, deserve autofidelidad, it isn'ta God, but neither suppress it, not a matter of religion, not a matter of morality is a matter of humanism. No statement theist, atheist no less a religion can be humanly acceptable.
