Why Kant's Objection to the Ontological Argument was Wrong - Pocket Sized Apologetics #74

Immanuel Kant objected to Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God because he claimed that "existence" was really a "predicate" for a the concept of a perfect being like God. In this week's episode, Ken explains what Kant meant and why Kant's objection ultimately misses the target.

[CobaltSerpent]

Existence still is not a predicate. When the child asks the mother if animal x exists, it is a question pertaining to the nature of reality, rather than the nature of animal x. It is similar to asking "Is your car red?", in which the question regards the car rather than the concept of red. Neither answer would change the asker's understanding of "red", only of the particular car in question. In the same way, "Do unicorns exist?" can be rephrased as "Does reality contain at least one unicorn?". Again, neither answer would alter our understanding of unicorns, only of reality.

[davidphilpot]

If an accurate understanding of god is the even possible then this argument might hold some water, but there are huge problems with this approach. Believers often cite chapter and verse about god's nature and intentions for how his "creations" should live their lives, while at the same time declaring that the mind of god is beyond the understanding of mere humans. The responsibility for this incongruity can rightly be placed at god's feet because he "created" us as we are, and his plan is described by believers as unfolding perfectly by his will. So, there's the fly in the ointment regarding the definition of god that Groothuis used to set up his argument. Before the character of a supernatural being can rightfully be explained, the existence of that being must be reasonably demonstrated to be true. Religion has failed to do this, and as such the arguments used by believers begin with what should be their conclusion, that a god or gods exist, and then they concoct a list of unfalsifiable traits that their god supposedly has. This faulty process is the reason no good evidence of god's existence is ever presented by believers to support their religious beliefs. This fatal flaw exists in every argument for god's existence, and it is why religion has never convinced anyone who follows the evidence of an argument to where it leads, rather than beginning an argument with a presuppositional belief about what the argument's conclusion needs to be.

[sergiosergiosergio]

Thank You. You helped a lot with my 30 Mark question on Kants Views.