D‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍escartes, in his quest to discover something that could serve as an indisputable starting point for constructing a system of knowledge, argued in his ontological proof of God’s existence that a perfect Being must actually exist, for otherwise it would be less than perfect. He goes on to say that “since we ‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍can in this way be certain that a perfect Being [God] exists, and such a Being must be good in order to be perfect, we can also be confident that such a Being would not deceive us.” Which of the elements of this proof, if any, strike you as debatable? Why? On what grounds would you argue for or against it‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍?