Descartes was very willing to unveil the uncertainty which was prevailing. He wanted to defeat skepticism completely. All these proofs were brought about by the fact that he wanted to remove his metaphysical doubts. Descartes tried to apply clear and distinct ideas as a paradigm to capture human knowledge and the use of cosmological argument to prove the existence of God. After all, he could not convince the people about his ideas as they are not supported by concrete reasoning. What he has made us aware of is not convincing enough to prove the existence of God. He does not satisfactorily give justification of his claim that the relationship between the truth of the idea objective and the recognized truth of the event that brings about the idea is direct. Adequacy of the two Descartes proofs for the existence of God The first Descartes’ proof for the existence of God was based on ‘nothing perfect can come from something less perfect’. This argument left people questionable as it is possible for something perfect to be borne by something imperfect. Something cannot come from anything. There are so many things in the universe existing and are believed to come from nowhere. In his second proof for the existence of God, his reasoning was based on ‘the powers and action which are used to take care of something, it’s the same power which would be required in the creation of something new’. This is not true because sometimes the power needed to create something is more than the power required to take care of it. The reality must be seen in the cause in the same manner as in the effect (Cahn, 350). Descartes’ proof of the existence of God was made adequate by some factors which include; he considered that through the facts of the natural light there is truth in the efficient thing and complete cause as it is in its effect (Cahn 361). Secondly, it was based on the fact that in any idea there is one set objective to guide it instead of any other. Thirdly, he argued that if the objective set in his ideas is of that nature, then it’s not in him, and such he can not be the original cause of it. Descartes, therefore, concluded that he was not doing things and reasoning alone but with another being existing in him which can be referred to as the cause of all those ideas. This was meant to convince people but in reality, he was reasoning alone. The fourth factor which Descartes put in place was that his major idea was of a perfect God; it was then an objective with the utmost reality in it. He suggested that it’s only God who can be the main cause of such an efficient idea and the fact that such an idea exists and has an efficient and complete cause. It was so definite to him that God exists (Sarkar 125) On the other hand, he doesn’t give us complete and sufficient proof of the clear and distinct idea which he claimed to have of a God who is perfect. In the second proof for God’s existence, Descartes questioned himself whether he has any power which can manage to preserve his existence. He forgot that he also had some responsibilities to take care of himself (Sarkar 205). The other factor he put into consideration was the fact that parents had the capability of bringing him into the world, but creating and preserving him was beyond their potential. The parents and the people around him were capable of protecting him from a