ashdod_mogger
Help myself and others to improve themselves
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2026
- Posts
- 463
- Reputation
- 295
Immanuel Kant deals with this great question in his magnum opus "Critique of Pure Reason" (translated by Jeremiah Yuval, Jerusalem: Kibbutz Hameuchad, 2013; hereinafter: Kant 1787) in the second unit, Volume two, chapter 3, sub-sections §3-4. There he speaks of the impossibility of a philosophical proof of the existence of God.
There he criticizes the attempts to prove the 'absolutely necessary being', an object whose existence is not conditioned, whose definition is 'its non-existence is impossible' (Kant 1787, p. 487). In theology, it is customary to understand this entity as God, who is bound by reality and is also complete, perfect, greater than any thought or maximal being, an object whose all attributes are positive, which cannot possibly lack ontological existence, because then it would not be complete.
It rejects the evidence in several ways. It is absolutely necessary that every triangle has three angles, but if we deny the existence of the subject - the triangle - it will also be possible to deny the absolutely necessary predicate - that the triangle has three angles. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction here. When I deny the subject, God, I also deny the predicate (existence, for example; Kant 1787, pp. 488-489)
{An addition that may help to understand the matter: predicates are attributed to existing objects, such as the sentence "The unicorn is pink", if we want to empirically test the truth value of the claim we take all the pink objects and all those that are not pink, to our surprise it turns out that the unicorn is not in any of the groups: sensation, the rule of the excluded third is rejected from the stage of logic, we have found a claim that is neither true nor false. Well, the truth is not. Russell explains that there are several claims here: There is a unicorn, and this unicorn is attributed the predicate 'being pink', since the first clause is false, it cannot be attributed a predicate, and therefore the truth value of the claim is false.}
Kant offers a dilemma argument: Is the sentence: 'A certain thing exists' analytic or synthetic? If it is analytic, then it simply shows what we assumed in it, and there is nothing new. I exist, that is: I exist. An empty tautology and nothing more. If it is a synthetic sentence, it is necessarily contingent and its negation is possible. Either way, it is not necessary (Kant 1787, p. 490).
Which if course that would make a concradiction.
And here comes the answer to the question. Kant distinguishes between a logical predicate and a real predicate. He claims that existence is not a real predicate, it is a positing, a determination. Let's look at the sentence: 'God is omnipotent' There is one subject here, omnipotence and not existence (= He) and omnipotence. There is no difference between a hundred existing new shekels and a hundred possible new shekels (in terms of the concept), but the state of affairs in the world. When I think about a thing, the statement that it exists does not add anything new to me, because if the same thing when it exists in reality is different from the same thing when it does not exist in reality, then they are not the same thing, and this is a contradiction. (Similar to Leibniz's principle of the identity of Identity of Indiscernibles.) By saying that Moses is white, single, and exists, you did not say anything different than that Moses is white and single, only the statement about the state of affairs in the world has changed. (Kant 1787, pp. 490-492)
I'm rather poorly educated as of now, I tried to explain things as I understood them. And the things are profound, who will find them, and the wise will understand. Nevertheless, I give hope that I managed to understand and explain these sublime things to my humble self.
@PrinceLuenLeoncur
There he criticizes the attempts to prove the 'absolutely necessary being', an object whose existence is not conditioned, whose definition is 'its non-existence is impossible' (Kant 1787, p. 487). In theology, it is customary to understand this entity as God, who is bound by reality and is also complete, perfect, greater than any thought or maximal being, an object whose all attributes are positive, which cannot possibly lack ontological existence, because then it would not be complete.
It rejects the evidence in several ways. It is absolutely necessary that every triangle has three angles, but if we deny the existence of the subject - the triangle - it will also be possible to deny the absolutely necessary predicate - that the triangle has three angles. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction here. When I deny the subject, God, I also deny the predicate (existence, for example; Kant 1787, pp. 488-489)
{An addition that may help to understand the matter: predicates are attributed to existing objects, such as the sentence "The unicorn is pink", if we want to empirically test the truth value of the claim we take all the pink objects and all those that are not pink, to our surprise it turns out that the unicorn is not in any of the groups: sensation, the rule of the excluded third is rejected from the stage of logic, we have found a claim that is neither true nor false. Well, the truth is not. Russell explains that there are several claims here: There is a unicorn, and this unicorn is attributed the predicate 'being pink', since the first clause is false, it cannot be attributed a predicate, and therefore the truth value of the claim is false.}
Kant offers a dilemma argument: Is the sentence: 'A certain thing exists' analytic or synthetic? If it is analytic, then it simply shows what we assumed in it, and there is nothing new. I exist, that is: I exist. An empty tautology and nothing more. If it is a synthetic sentence, it is necessarily contingent and its negation is possible. Either way, it is not necessary (Kant 1787, p. 490).
Which if course that would make a concradiction.
And here comes the answer to the question. Kant distinguishes between a logical predicate and a real predicate. He claims that existence is not a real predicate, it is a positing, a determination. Let's look at the sentence: 'God is omnipotent' There is one subject here, omnipotence and not existence (= He) and omnipotence. There is no difference between a hundred existing new shekels and a hundred possible new shekels (in terms of the concept), but the state of affairs in the world. When I think about a thing, the statement that it exists does not add anything new to me, because if the same thing when it exists in reality is different from the same thing when it does not exist in reality, then they are not the same thing, and this is a contradiction. (Similar to Leibniz's principle of the identity of Identity of Indiscernibles.) By saying that Moses is white, single, and exists, you did not say anything different than that Moses is white and single, only the statement about the state of affairs in the world has changed. (Kant 1787, pp. 490-492)
I'm rather poorly educated as of now, I tried to explain things as I understood them. And the things are profound, who will find them, and the wise will understand. Nevertheless, I give hope that I managed to understand and explain these sublime things to my humble self.
@PrinceLuenLeoncur
