The Possibility of Ontological Proof

Quote from Kant's The Impossibility of Ontological Proof ~

[Note: Predicate = existence; Subject = God]

"If, in an identical proposition, I reject the predicate while retaining the subject, contradiction results; and I therefore say that the former belongs necessarily to the latter. But if we reject suject and predicate alike, there is no contradiction; for nothing is then left that can be contradicted. To posit a triangle, and yet to reject its three angles, is self-contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles. The same holds true of the concept of an absolutely necessary being. If its existence is rejected, we reject the thing itself with all its predicates; and no question of contradiction can then arise. There is nothing outside it that would then be contradicted, since the necessity of the thing is not supposed to be derived from anything external; nor is there anything internal that would be contradicted, since in rejecting the thing itself we have at the same time rejected all its internal properties. "God is omnipotent" is a necessary judgment. The omnipotence cannot be rejected if we posit a Deity, that is, an infinite being; for the two concepts are identical. But if we say, "There is no God," neither the omnipotence nor any other of its predicates is given; they are one and all rejected together with the subject, and there is therefore not the least contradiction in such a judgment.

Major Point Of Writing Above ~ According to Descartes(Writer of The Ontological Arguement Restated), the very concept of God automatically points to God's existence. The subject God includes perfection as a predicate, and contained in this predicate would be existence. The reason: perfection would include existence. Kant disagrees with this logic. He states that rejecting the predicate(existence) while retaining the subject(God) will result in a contradiction. Rejecting the subject(God) and the predicate(existence) doesn't result in internal contradiction. Thus, he concludes that rejecting the idea of God and His existence is a O.K. logically.

My Response ~ The argument presented by Kant is incorrect. He begins by saying that rejecting the subject(God) and predicate(existence) is logical, because there is no internal contradiction. In the process of doing so he neglects the things outside the statement, which could be important. For example let us say that we are having philosophy class and I blindfold you(the teacher) and ask you to leave the room for a few minutes. While you are gone, I draw a triangle(subject) on the blackboard. I then proceed to indicate its existence(predicate) to the rest of the class. You come back into the room. I ask you, ‘Does there exist(predicate) a triangle(subject) on the chalk board?' Using Kant's argument, you say, ‘I reject both the existence and the triangle, and I am logical in doing so.' I say you are wrong, since you have forgotten to take in account the thing might be on the chalk board whether or not your argument is internally logical. Then, using Kant's philosophy, you state that existence is not an attribute. I would then say, ‘If I told you that it was on the board you would have different thoughts than if I told you it wasn't.' This shows that existence of something has reflection within your thought.' I would then take off your blindfold and continue to say, ‘There is a picture of a UFO on your desk.' So you look, then I say, ‘The UFO you have a picture of on your desk exists.' You would then have different thoughts attributed to my statement then if the UFO didn't exist. This is proof that existence is a predicate and that Kant's logical argument is flawed. Therefore, Descartes argument is correct.

Clipped from Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, translated by Norman Kemp Smith (1929).