1) the Proof begins by fixing the presence of an indeterminate experience. Therefore, it is cosmological, corresponds to the mind. The mind only starts from fixing the facts of uncertain experience. It is reduced to the ontological, and together with the ontological, it also turns out to be useless. The reference to experience is a ploy to cover up the reduction of this evidence to an ontological one. Kant says, not without pathos, that this argument contains a whole nest of dialectical claims and sophistic principles. Transcendental principles conclude from the accidental to the cause. The category of causality is related only to possible experience (the domain of reason, transcendental Analytics). Only in so far as they can be attributed to experience. Here – within the framework of the idea. There is no reason to attribute the transcendental category of cause to God (idea) and the world (idea). Beyond the scope of categories. Sophistry.

2) the Basis for the conclusion about the possibility of an infinite series of successive causes. Therefore, we must recognize the first cause (Aristotelian logic). This principle does not give reason to apply it to experience. The concept of an infinite series is not suitable for experience, it is false (remember antinomies), it is not suitable to conclude about the transition from an absolutely necessary essence to a cause. The gap between our world and the world of absolute essence.

3) by Performing such an operation, the mind attains false self-satisfaction. He thinks a false infinite series, eliminates all conditions, speaks of an absolutely necessary essence. The mind is satisfied, but without conditions the concept of necessity has no meaning. Therefore, the concept of an absolutely necessary entity is a meaningless concept. It makes sense in a situation where it is conditioned-so-and-so follows. Also sophistry, according to Kant. “Absolute necessity is a real Gulf for the human mind.” Whence the absolute necessity, if everything is conditioned by it? “Everything is slipping under our feet here.” In General, the cosmological proof is reduced to an ontological one.

The physico-theological proof. Corresponds to the ability to sense knowledge. The starting point is a certain experience. This certainty is in the idea of the expediency of the world. In the world, man finds clear signs of order, subordination to a certain goal. This expedient order is absolutely foreign to the things themselves in the world. The necessity of order cannot be deduced from things. Therefore, expediency is accidental in relation to things in themselves. There is, therefore, a wise reason for this purpose, which acts as a thinking being and has freedom. The original premise serves only as an excuse to jump to the cosmological proof – the position of the randomness of the existence of pordka in relation to things, and the position of randomness is a cosmological proof. A series of events-the cause-is random. From chance to the recognition of an absolutely necessary entity. Reduced to an ontological proof.

Conclusion: “completely barren and in their inner content worthless.” After Kant, all claims to the significance of proofs of the existence of God are fruitless. Hegel talks at great length about ontological proof. But useless. No rational approach to proving the existence of God is acceptable.