Criticism of the proofs of the existence of God. There are only three of them-ontological, cosmological and physical-theological. Only three possibilities-they correspond to certain cognitive abilities of a person (sensory knowledge, reason and reason). The physical-theological proof corresponds to sensory knowledge, and the proof is based on a certain experience. Cosmological proof corresponds to rational knowledge, indefinite experience. Ontological proof distracts from all experience and proceeds only from the content of the concept of God, a purely speculative distraction from all experience. Corresponds to the rational faculty-the mind operates with ideas that go beyond all experience. He begins his criticism with an ontological proof of the existence of God.

The idea of God is the idea of reason, not a category; that which has nothing to do with experience. It should be considered first of all. It exposes the inconsistency of the ontological proof. In two steps, two steps.

1) Considers the reference to the fact that the concept of God is taken as the concept of an absolute, unconditionally necessary entity. Descartes Is An Example. Until the 17th century (from the 11th century), no one seriously considered ontological proof due to the criticism of the Comte de montagni (monk Gaunila, “Book in defense of the madman against Anselm, reasoning in his Proslogion”). Descartes-God is an absolutely necessary, unconditional essence. If we take a triangle, we must admit that a triangle has three angles. Exactly the same – God. A concept that presupposes an absolutely necessary entity, and an existing one. Kant: the position that a triangle contains three angles is the necessary position. Only necessary if the triangle is given. If it is not there, there is no need either. This is also the case with an absolutely necessary entity. Necessity refers only to the content of the concept, not to its existence. If I assume God as existing, he exists necessarily. Necessity is the predicate of judgment. And God is only a subject of judgment. If I reject the predicate and leave the subject, I fall into contradiction. If I reject both the predicate and the subject, then there is no contradiction. The only possibility is a naked Declaration of an unfounded judgment about the existence of God. This is not proof.

2) the Second step. The position of Descartes-God is declared to be the most real essence, the highest perfection, the dignity of which includes existence. If there is no such thing as omnipotence, all-wisdom. When he says that the concept of God is the concept of the most perfect being, it is a contradiction-if God does not exist, then perfection is imperfect. Kant argues that being is not a real predicate, not a concept of something that could be added to the concept of a thing. Kant explains the situation as follows:the actual contains no more than the possible. A hundred thalers is not really one Pfennig more than a hundred thalers in the world. And vice versa. But my property will be larger if the actual thalers are in the purse. The content of the possible thalers does not differ from the actual ones. A hundred thalers is-nothing is added to the content of the concept that is claimed as real. Not a real predicate. Therefore, whatever the content may be in our concept, we must go beyond this concept in order to solve the question of the existence of the object. For objects of sensuous contemplation, the exit is in experience; for objects of intellectual activity, it is in experience, but ideas are beyond the limits of possible experience. Therefore, the assumption of the existence of God we can only declare, make an assumption. This concludes. Essence – impossible, it is inadmissible to conclude about the reality of things on the basis of the notion of this thing. The same is said Gaunilo: the idea of the mental state of our life, only my point of view.

The basis is the idea of the identity of being and thinking in relation to the concept of God. The concept of God is an idea beyond experience, a bare speculation. The identity cannot be proved.