Renee Descartes was a french philosopher/mathematician(1) who was very skeptical about the physical world. In fact, he said that we cannot trust our senses. Our senses are very unreliable. When we are young our eyes see with good precision (for most people), and as we grow old we lose that precision and things get fuzzier. (Keep in mind that I am not arguing FOR Renee, I'm just saying what he believes.) However unreliable our senses may be, he goes on to say that we can use our senses as a medium to come to a consensus with other people. (Ex: If I am standing next to George, and we are both in front of a tree, we both may see something completely different. Regardless, we both agree that it is a tree.) Along with that, our senses are our main source of experience. (Ex: We must first sense a tree in some form before we know what it is.) Once we have experienced something, then we can idealize it and use it in our language. Renee Descartes came to this conclusion and thought to himself, If I know ideas only through experience, then how do I know Perfection?

I was in physics today and my teacher alluded to something very similar. If there is a two dimensional world (not like maple story where its vertical, more like Flatland(2)) and the two dimensional people have in their language a word "mountain", how the hell did it get there? My physics teacher argued that if there was any word referring to the third dimension like mountain, or up, then the two dimensional people must have been visited by a three dimensional being at one point in time.

With this whole concept of and idea that "doesn't belong", or couldn't possibly be a result of the surrounding environment, Renee Descartes argues that we must have met God before we were linked to our bodies, and that is how we know perfection.

Do you think that we have ever been given divine revelation by a four dimensional being that we hail as (G)god?

Okay, first off- we live in the fourth dimension. The x,y,z axis for 3 dimensional layout, and the time frame for the 4th dimension.
God isn't dimensional. You cannot define God in any sort of matter other than something that is probably higher than us. You cannot possibly assume anything about God. Otherwise God can be defined as anything what anyone would believe it to be from nothing to a hippie riding in a chariot with thunder.
I don't know about fourth dimension. We ARE fourth dimension people. But as the Bible suggests, it has been visited by Jesus- yes.

In fact, BeDazed, we do not have a real name for the 4th dimension... we do not know if it is time (though when we think of space-time and time distortions, I do agree that it seems to be that famous dimension).
Anyways, personally, I'm pretty sure that we do not really know what "perfection" means. We've created such a word to fill in the blank created by such a concept. Can you really tell me what perfection is? If you could, then it would mean that it is absolute... but you cannot. The Perfection is relative to our likes and dislikes, etc.
Moreover, who can pretend that he -really- knows himself at 100%? People always know things about us that we do not...

The word "perfection" implies that is is 100% perfect. A perfection would also be absolute if it was to be 100% perfect and people couldn't agree on something such as "Would the perfect fruit taste apple?". The perfection is some kind of undetermined concepts which we pretend to understand, but we really do not.

Your premise that a people can't have a word for something in more dimensions than them is wrong. My math teacher showed me some of this before - I believe it was a picture of a cube in one, two, three, four and five dimensions (I'm aware that it's not a cube at 1,2,4,5). We can also imagine something being in five dimensions (you're doing it now), so, your premise is wrong.

One of the many things wrong with this topic.

Descartes does not prove god exists with the idea of perfection. The problem is that Descartes also presents the concept of Methodic doubt which leads to the idea of the evil genius who tricks the senses. Descartes tries to reason god with the idea with perfection but how can he reason if he cannot trust his senses.

If there is a god, this god will be evil and not an idea of perfection. How can you even prove that other people are not just tricks that the evil god has created. I think therefore I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_daemon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

We are three dimensional people with respect to space, including a linear dimension of time. If we were to look at a sheet of paper, considered a universe to a two dimensional society, wouldn't we be as gods? We can manipulate their entire setup. We could speak to them and give them "divine revelation", We could shatter their entire world, or, intervene as we chose. So, rip the paper to bits, or crumple it in a ball? Thats what I call omnipotent.

*sigh*... I think you mean DesCartes premise is wrong.

@Payne Yeah, that makes sense. Perfection is very subjective in the way we use it. "My day was perfect!", it might as well be on the same level with any adjective. Personally I thought that Renee DesCartes was trying to so hard to find a reason to prove that god exists, that he found himself one. but as MasterJohnny explains, Renee DesCartes skepticism can be applied to his theories as well.

Well for the most part Renee DesCartes had me in a corner. I knew that he was wrong, but I could not see why (Haha, i suppose that is arrogant or stubborn, but at least im honest! ). This topic has satisfied my understanding, topic closed? (thanks Payne&MasterJohnny)

Just for your information, a cube in 4 dimensions is called an Hypercube or Tesseract.
Check it out in Wikipedia, it's interesting.
If someone knows the name of the cube in 5 dimensions, that would be appreciated

I don't know what it's called, but I can define it for you:
The 5-D cube, or in general the N-Cube (cube in N dimensions) can easily be parametrized as the following:
(X1,X2,X3,X4,X5)
Vertices of the N-(unit)Cube are simply all combinations of 1 and -1 on the coordinates, like so:
(1,1,1,...,1,1), (1,1,1,...,1,-1), (1,1,1,...,-1,1) ....and so on.... (1,-1,-1,...,-1,-1), (-1,-1,-1,....,-1,-1)
Edges can be obtained by running a single parameter from -1 to 1
(X,1,1,...,1,1), X is in (-1,1), and we do this for each combination of -1 and 1 on the (n-1) other coordinates.
so we have n coordinates to put X on, and 2^(n-1) combinations for the other coordinates,
is n(2^(n-1)) edges, and we can continue this line of reasoning to get 2-d "edges" (a plane) and
3-d "edges" up to (n-1)-d "edges"

We don't live in "4D" or "3D" or something. Space has 3 dimensions, and because of Einstein's theorem that space and time are related, we often regard space-time as 4D. That does not mean WE are 3D or 4D, just that space-time is. "Dimensions" aren't some mysterious thing, and we do have a name for the 4th dimension: 4D! Its that simple. (well, the name is anyway). The fourth dimension isn't some "thing" as you're saying payne, it's a property of things. You can have a 4D object, a 4D vector space, a 4D apple if it existed, but you can't have "4D" just like you can't have "2D" and you can't have "7."

Same goes with you Proto, just because someone else might be 2D doesn't mean us folks who can percieve 3 dimensions would be all powerful over them. What if one entity of a 2D species was as large as a cross section of the Sun? What if we meet a 4D species that is as large as an ant in its 3D cross section?

I think ProtoTank has a very wrong idea of a God. A God in definition, is 'omnipotence'. And when we define it that way, we can 'define' omnipotence, but cannot actually get to know what it is. And just because something is of a higher dimension- does not mean it is a God. And I don't think Descartes uses doubt to define perfection, but rather defines his view of Dualism- of body and mind.