l existential propositions are contingent. I shall conclude that existential propositions can be necessary propositions. Then, I shall explain the difference between a real necessary existential proposition and a merely apparent one. Existential propositions can be necessary. Indeed, some must be necessary. That necessary existential propositions are known to exist is understood primarily by the combination of the principle of sufficient reason, the law against infinite regress, and the law of noncontradiction. A necessary existential proposition is distinguished from all others by the law of noncontradiction. Then, regarding the law of noncontradiction, I shall show the significant inconsistencies that are inherent in Kant’s and Russell’s positions. It shall turn out that a lot more, namely the law of noncontradiction, is rejected by Kant and Russell—more than they seem to intend with their arguments against necessary existential propositions. Finally, I shall answer the famous argument that questions whether existence can be a predicate via a discussion of non-existence. The ultimate conclusion will be that an ontological argument for the existence of God can meet the objections of those raised in this paper.The most famous advocate of the proposition, "No existential propositions are necessary" is Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant writes in his Critique of Pure Reason: For the object as it actually exists, is not analytically contained in my concept, but is added to my concept (which is the determination of my state) synthetically; and yet the conceived hundred thalers are not themselves in the least increased through thus acquiring existence outside my concept.(Kant 505) Concepts do not have the attribute of existence; instead, it must be added to them synthetically. A synthetic proposition is one in which the predicate adds something to the subject such that thinking about the nature of the subject does not in and of i...
