oncept of God, and if we reject that, then we are contradicting the idea of God. But Kant says that this is not so. Existence is not a property of a thing. If we re!
             ject the existence of thing, we reject the thing itself with all its properties. Therefore, there is no contradiction because there is nothing left to be contradicted.
             The defenders of the ontological argument have a comeback though. They say that the person who rejects the existence of God has not grasped the concept of God correctly because existence is part of the concept of God. In conclusion, the person does not understand what he is denying. But Kant comes back with an even stronger argument. As we already know, existence is not a first order property, it just says that something is actually there. In Kant's own words, "'Being' is obviously not a real predicate: that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves." Kant's argument makes perfect sense. Let us use a triangle to prove his point. Say that right now I have the concept of a triangle in my head. A triangle is a geometrical figure with three angles. Under the condition that I have the concept of the triangle in my head, it necessarily !
             follows that I must have the idea that three angles make up the triangle. Otherwise I would not have correctly grasped the concept of the triangle. Now, regardless of whether the object exists in my reality or not, I still have the concept in my head. Regardless of whether I believe that the triangle exists or not I have not come to any contradictions. We have just proved that the ontological argument is incorrect. Again, existence can never be treated as a property which describes an object.
             We now come to the question of morality. How does Kant's deontological theory view morality and how does it compare to other...