Explanation: Ontological arguments are deductive, relying on reason and the concept of being, rather than empirical evidence from the natural world.

Explanation: Saint Anselm of Canterbury is widely credited with formulating the first ontological argument in the Western Christian philosophical tradition in his work, the 'Proslogion'.

Explanation: The core of Anselm's argument relies on the definition of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived,' using this concept as the basis for inferring existence.

Explanation: This statement accurately reflects Anselm's reasoning: if the greatest conceivable being existed only in the mind, then a greater being (one existing in reality) could be conceived, leading to a logical contradiction.

Explanation: Anselm's argument in Chapter 3 introduces the concept of necessary existence, arguing that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than one whose existence is contingent.

Explanation: A 'necessary existent' is defined as a being whose existence is not contingent but is required by its own nature; its non-existence is logically impossible.

Explanation: Ontological arguments are deductive philosophical arguments that attempt to establish God's existence based on a priori reasoning about the concept of God or existence itself.

Explanation: Saint Anselm of Canterbury is credited with presenting the first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition within his work titled 'Proslogion'.

Explanation: Anselm defined God as 'a being than which no greater can be conceived,' establishing the concept of a maximally great being as the subject of his argument.

Explanation: The core logic posits that if the greatest conceivable being existed only in the mind, then a greater being (one existing in reality) could be conceived, which contradicts the initial definition, thus proving its necessary existence.

Explanation: In Chapter 3, Anselm distinguished between necessary existence (a being that cannot fail to exist) and contingent existence (a being that could potentially not exist).

Explanation: A necessary existent is understood as a being whose existence is entailed by its very nature; its non-existence would be a logical impossibility.

Explanation: René Descartes articulated his ontological argument in the fifth of his 'Meditations on First Philosophy'.

Explanation: Descartes argued that God's existence could be inferred from a *clear and distinct* idea of a supremely perfect being, not a vague one.

Explanation: Leibniz's contribution involved demonstrating the logical coherence of the concept of a supremely perfect being, thus validating a key premise in Descartes' argument.

Explanation: Avicenna, an influential Islamic philosopher, developed an argument that concluded there must exist a 'necessary existent,' whose existence is not dependent on anything else, rather than a contingent existent.

Explanation: Mulla Sadra's Seddiqin Argument posits that existence is graded by perfection, with God representing the highest degree of existence.

Explanation: Descartes argued that existence is a perfection, and since God is defined as the supremely perfect being, existence must be part of God's essence.

Explanation: Leibniz addressed the potential issue of whether the concept of a supremely perfect being is logically coherent, arguing that all perfections are compatible and can coexist.

Explanation: Avicenna, an influential Islamic philosopher, developed an argument for a 'necessary existent' that shares conceptual similarities with Western ontological arguments.

Explanation: Mulla Sadra's Seddiqin Argument posits that existence is a singular reality that is graded by perfection, with God representing the highest degree of existence.

Explanation: Norman Malcolm's interpretation argued that Anselm's second ontological argument, focusing on necessary existence, was actually stronger and more resistant to criticism than the first formulation.

Explanation: Friedrich Hegel disagreed with Kant's critique, arguing that Kant's analogy of the '100 thaler' was flawed and that when God is understood as the totality of being, the ontological argument's logical necessity becomes apparent.

Explanation: Gaunilo of Marmoutiers employed the analogy of a 'perfect island' in his critique of Anselm's argument, suggesting that the same logic could prove the existence of any conceivable perfect entity.

Explanation: Gaunilo's objection suggested that Anselm's reasoning could prove the existence of any conceivable *perfect* entity, not an imperfect one.

Explanation: Anselm responded to Gaunilo by asserting that his proof applied specifically to entities possessing *necessary* existence, distinguishing them from contingent entities like islands.

Explanation: Thomas Aquinas rejected the ontological argument on the grounds that humans *cannot* fully know God's essence, which he considered a prerequisite for such an argument.

Explanation: David Hume argued that existence is not a perfection and does not add to the concept or essence of a being; rather, it is a property that is either instantiated or not.

Explanation: Immanuel Kant's central criticism is that 'existence is *not* a real predicate,' meaning it does not add a property to the concept of a thing.

Explanation: William L. Rowe argued that ontological arguments inherently 'beg the question,' implying they require a prior belief in God's existence to be accepted.

Explanation: The coherence objection challenges the logical compatibility of divine attributes, such as omnipotence and omniscience, questioning whether they can coexist without contradiction.

Explanation: Bertrand Russell, in his later philosophical views, found the ontological argument unconvincing, distinguishing between the essence of a concept and its actual existence.

Explanation: Hegel contended that Kant's critique, particularly the '100 thaler' analogy, incorrectly compared finite entities with God as the totality of being, thus misapplying the critique.

Explanation: Gaunilo's most famous objection to Anselm's ontological argument utilized the analogy of a 'perfect island'.

Explanation: Anselm contended that his argument applied specifically to beings with necessary existence, distinguishing them from contingent entities like islands, which could always be improved.

Explanation: Aquinas rejected the ontological argument because he believed humans lack the capacity to fully comprehend God's essence, which he considered necessary for the argument's validity.

Explanation: Hume argued that existence is not a predicate that adds to the concept of a thing; rather, it is the instantiation of that concept.

Explanation: Kant's central critique is that existence is not a real predicate; it does not add anything to the concept of a thing.

Explanation: Kant argued that if 'God exists' were an analytic proposition, it would be a tautology, merely stating what is already contained within the concept of God, and thus would not prove actual existence.

Explanation: William L. Rowe argued that ontological arguments commit the fallacy of 'begging the question,' meaning they presuppose what they are trying to prove.

Explanation: The coherence objection challenges whether the attributes commonly ascribed to God, such as omnipotence and omniscience, are logically compatible and can coexist without contradiction.

Explanation: Bertrand Russell later found the ontological argument unconvincing, asserting that the essence of a concept does not guarantee its existence.

Explanation: Modal versions of the ontological argument utilize principles of *modal logic*, which deals with possibility and necessity, not deontic logic.

Explanation: Kurt Gödel developed a formal ontological argument employing modal logic, defining a 'God-like' being as one possessing all positive properties.

Explanation: Alvin Plantinga argued that a maximally great being must possess maximal excellence in *all* possible worlds, not just some.

Explanation: Alvin Plantinga distinguished between 'maximal excellence,' referring to the highest degree of properties within a particular possible world, and 'maximal greatness,' which denotes maximal excellence across all possible worlds.

Explanation: Automated theorem provers have sometimes validated the logical structure of certain ontological arguments, occasionally finding simpler formalizations, rather than disproving their validity.

Explanation: Norman Malcolm's influential interpretation highlighted the strength of Anselm's argument concerning God's necessary existence, arguing it was immune to certain criticisms.

Explanation: Modal versions of the ontological argument fundamentally rely on modal logic, which formalizes reasoning about possibility, necessity, and contingency.

Explanation: Kurt Gödel's formal ontological argument was constructed using the framework of modal logic.

Explanation: Plantinga argued that for a being to be maximally great, it must possess maximal excellence in all possible worlds, not merely in some.

Explanation: Automated theorem provers have been employed to rigorously test the logical structure of ontological arguments, sometimes confirming their validity within formal systems or discovering more concise formulations.

Explanation: Douglas Gasking proposed a satirical argument suggesting that if existence is a perfection, then a creator who achieved the world's creation while being non-existent would be greater, implying God's non-existence.

Explanation: The 'devil corollary' is a parody of the ontological argument that attempts to prove the existence of a maximally evil being, i.e., a being than which nothing worse can be conceived.

Explanation: The Kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise that the universe *began* to exist, not that it has always existed.

Explanation: The 'devil corollary' parody aims to demonstrate the existence of a maximally evil being, i.e., a being than which nothing worse can be conceived, by mirroring Anselm's logic.

Explanation: The Kalam cosmological argument is predicated on the premise that the universe began to exist.

Explanation: Pascal's Wager is a pragmatic argument asserting that the potential infinite reward of believing in God outweighs any finite cost or loss associated with disbelief.

Explanation: The problem of evil highlights the apparent tension between the existence of evil and suffering in the world and the traditional attributes of God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

Explanation: Russell's Teapot analogy serves to illustrate that the burden of proof lies with the person making an extraordinary claim (e.g., about God's existence), rather than requiring others to disprove it.

Explanation: The 'God of the gaps' criticism targets arguments that invoke divine action to explain phenomena that are currently not understood scientifically, suggesting this approach diminishes as scientific knowledge expands.

Explanation: The argument from desire posits that deep-seated human desires, particularly for ultimate fulfillment, imply the existence of a corresponding object or reality capable of satisfying them, often identified as God.