Descartes, What A Guy.

He Thinks, Therefore He Is Making Unsafe Assumptions.

But it could not be the same with the idea of a being more perfect than my own; for to derive it from nothing was manifestly impossible; and because it is no less repugnant that the more perfect should follow and depend upon the less perfect than that something should come forth out of nothing. I could not derive it from myself.

It remained, then, to conclude that it was put into me by a nature truly more perfect than was I and possessing in itself all the perfections of what I could form an idea--in a word, by God.

What a great line.
Rene Descartes starts off by assuming that everything is false, so that his thinking is not contaminated by irrelevancies and inaccuracies. He makes one solid realization (which I'll discuss momentarily,) and then springs headlong from there into assumptions, leaving behind his brief foray into logic and instead churning out some kind of half-baked hash.
His first, logical, and eminently true realization is that "I think, therefore I am." In other words, even if you disregard the evidence of your senses entirely, write off any communication from others as fantasy, and ignore your surroundings entirely, you cannot escape the fact that there is, in existence, at least one thing which thinks, and it is yourself. Now, this would make a wonderful springboard for a venture into solipsism - the belief that you, alone, are all that exists, and all the rest is merely fantasy - but he doesn't bother with this notion.

Instead, he says that - get this - since he's not perfect, and he can conceive of the idea of perfection, and - assumption # 1 - perfection cannot arise from something imperfect, that the notion of perfection must have been placed into his brain by some external agency, which must in and of itself have been perfect.
Whoa, there, chief.
First off, you still haven't proved that there's anything outside of you at all anyway.
Secondly, your unwarranted assumption that perfection cannot arise from imperfection sabotages your whole argument.
But thirdly, when you then go on to declare, as he does, that any being which is perfect must be God, and therefore the notion of perfection has been placed into his head by Jehovah himself, you've gone off into the realm of the looney tunes entirely.
Especially when you follow it with this bit of doggerel:

To which I added that, since I knew some perfections which I did not possess, I was not the only being who existed, but that there must of necessity be some other being, more perfect, on whom I depended, and from whom I had acquired all that I possessed; for if I had existed alone and independent of all other, so that I had of myself all this little whereby I participated in the Perfect Being, I should have been able to have in myself all those other qualities which I knew myself to lack, and so to be infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, almighty--in fine, to possess all the perfections which I could observe in God.

In other words, God taught him everything he knows, and if he had NOT learned all this good stuff from God, then he himself must in fact be God, because he would somehow have attained perfection merely by being able to conceive of it without help. Since he's clearly not God, God exists.

Sheesh.

Don't get me wrong here. I believe that there is a life-force in the universe, which is a fundamental field of energy from which all things arise - there's physical evidence of this, by the way - and that this life-force consciously protects itself from intrusion - there's physical evidence of this, too, by the way - and that a life-form encompassing all that we are able to percieve as the material fabric of the universe is, in any sense that might be useful to us, God.

That doesn't mean He takes a personal interest, though.
See, certain concepts are inherent in the nature of thought itself - "quality." "Good." "Evil." "Perfection." These ideas occur to us naturally through the process of thought, without any need for a progenitor which embodies any of them. Define "quality," anyway. It's something so fundamental, and yet it's very hard to pin down, because it's a concept which is in itself dependent upon the observer.

Like the "inalienable rights" named in the Declaration of Independence, these concepts are inherent. They exist, separate from and independent of, any given thing, residing wholly within the observer. They don't require permission, or lessons.

I realize that this post has gone on a bit longer than I initially intended, and so I will conclude it. However, I intend to make a more formal, multi-post breakdown of what I think about in my off time a bit later, say two or three days.