Kantology: Addressing Kant and the Ontological Argument

"You can learn the easy way or you can learn the hard way, but taking the easy way will become hard and taking the hard way will become easy... Is this Ontological?"

The problem with Kant's assertion is that he never affirms the negative. His argument follows as this: "If I say a triangle exists and I also believe in exactly three connecting angles, I am saying the same thing – a triangle and its property." If I deny one concept I am in contradiction of the other (ie. I can't say I believe in a triangle while not believing in three connecting angles). But, if you deny the triangle in its totality then you can deny both without contradiction. If a triangle does not exist, then the properties of triangles (three connecting angles) do not exist either. Thus denying the existence of God in its totality will have no outside contradictions. So what is the problem? Kant cannot say, "God does not exist."

Kant states that the problem with Anselm's argument is that the affirmation of a deity and then proposing that this deity must exist is similar to the argument of the triangle. If you assume the existence of a triangle it is only logical to assume the existence of three connecting angles. So if God exists, then the rational conclusion is that He must be the greatest imaginable being. That is fallible. But before we travel any further, what does Kant offer to deny Anslem's argument? What idea does he have that does not externally or internally contradict Anslem's presupposition? Nothing. If, for a moment, Kant assumes that God does not exist, and then says "there is no outside argument to contradict that statement." We must say "Of course!" It is only logical to say, "If a triangle does not exist, then there are not three angles." So if God does not exist it only makes sense that He cannot be the greatest imaginable being. Again, the assumption is fallible and you are left with the same paradox... An issue of assumptions.

So why does the Ontological Argument still exists as both an exotic and rare argument if it suffers an apparent paradox? The paradoxes of both Kant and Anslem stand upon different corners - one paradox is not accepted and the other is. Kant's paradox rests upon an attempt to unglue Anslem by a straight-out denial of God (which assumes the non-existence of God - a paradoxical argument, which, of course, Kant understands and thus refuses to use such terms), whereas Anslem begins his paradox with the assumption of the existence of the human intellect (an excepted paradox of the Mind/Body Dichotomy - "the 'I' must exist to deny itself" with no further evidence needed to support the argument). Thus the only arguement Kant may successfully achieve is one of possiblity, "God possibly does not exist."

In response to Kant's refutation, Dr. Alvin Plantinga contends that the Ontolotical Arguement has never been sucessfully refuted because the possibility argument is a way of saying nothing on the topic. If this is true, then why is it that most people shy away from debating it? It's because the greatest threat is itself. The Ontological Argument holds an extremely abstract paradigm. If you are not dealing with a well-informed individual, you will be pointlessly assaulted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn; Stupid and irrelevant at best, but nonetheless, your opponent will still miss the entire point: That God exists.... So that's why I enjoy it. If you understand it, use it. You'll have fun.