impeccable.

Hegels critique to the proof, actually, stems from and largely embraces Kants objections to it, however, as it is usual with Hegel, he disagrees with Kant in the conclusion he obtains, though, he in some way adopts Kants original diagnostic1. In the case of the ontological argument, Hegel is well aware of the difficulties and shortcomings that the proof contains, and we can say (even if we do not explicitly states it) that he agrees with the idea that it does not matter how much we put inside the concept of a absolute necessary being, we are not able to add a priori existence or being to such concept. In other words, he acknowledges the difficulty that the apprentice of wizard strategy has. However, he understands this difficulty as a yearned chimera and an ever-present difficulty of the modern thought: to go and to give the spark of light to the monster. Although, Hegel expresses this critique in different terms and developing a different argument, the same problematic core of the proof seems to be what is under attack in his critique. On this matter, for Hegel, the problem is the abstract and purely external manner in which it is wanted to attach the predicates to the subject in the propositions for the proof of Gods existence. For Hegel this is an operation where God is taken just as an empty name (which does not have any meaning) to which they are simply appended what is thought are the adequate predicates according to a subjective opinion.

1 I will try to make this statement more clar in the following chapters, specially in relation to the

antinomies, and the diverse conclusions that both authors obtain from them.