ontological argument
{'<entity_0>': 'Anselm of Canterbury', '<entity_1>': 'ontological argument', '<entity_2>': 'argument'}
[['ontological argument', 'discoverer or inventor', 'Anselm of Canterbury'], ['ontological argument', 'subclass of', 'argument'], ['ontological argument', 'description', 'argument']]
An <entity_1> is a philosophical <entity_2>, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God. The first <entity_1> in Western Christian tradition was proposed by <entity_0> in his 1078 work, Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, lit. A more recent <entity_1> came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal <entity_2> for God's existence. Norman Malcolm revived the <entity_1> in 1960 when he located a second, stronger <entity_1> in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this <entity_2> and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. He contrasted the <entity_1> (literally any <entity_2> "concerned with being") with the cosmological and physio-theoretical arguments. Although a version of the <entity_1> appears explicitly in the writings of the ancient Greek philosopher Xenophanes and variations appear in writings by Parmenides, Plato, and the Neoplatonists, the mainstream view is that the <entity_1> was first clearly stated and developed by <entity_0>. Daniel Dombrowski marked three major stages in the development of the <entity_2>: Theologian and philosopher <entity_0> (1033–1109) proposed an <entity_1> in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of his Proslogion. Although Kant was critical of Descartes' formulation of the <entity_1>, he did believe that the <entity_2> was persuasive when created correctly. However, there have been newer, avowedly modal logic versions of the <entity_1>, and on the application of this type of logic to the <entity_2>, James Franklin Harris writes: ifferent versions of the <entity_1>, the so-called "modal" versions of the <entity_2>, which arguably avoid the part of Anselm's <entity_2> that "treats existence as a predicate," began to emerge. His rejection of the <entity_1> led other Catholic theologians to also reject the <entity_2>. Graham Oppy criticized the <entity_2>, viewing it as a weak parody of the <entity_1>. Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the <entity_2>; he once exclaimed: "Great God in Boots!—the <entity_1> is sound!"
['argument']