Loveless (film)

Loveless (Russian: Нелюбовь, romanized: Nelyubov) is a 2017 drama film directed by Andrey Zvyagintsev, who co-wrote it with Oleg Negin. The story concerns two separated parents, played by Maryana Spivak and Aleksey Rozin, whose loveless relationship has decayed into a state of bitterness and hostility. They are temporarily drawn back together after their only child goes missing and they attempt to find him.

The story was inspired by the search-and-rescue group Liza Alert and Zvyagintsev's desire to make a film about a family. He was originally interested in making a Russian reworking of the 1973 Swedish miniseries Scenes from a Marriage but could not obtain the rights. Loveless was produced with international support after the Russian government disapproved of Zvyagintsev's 2014 anti-corruption film Leviathan. As a result, Loveless is a co-production of Russia, France, Belgium and Germany. Cinematographer Mikhail Krichman used a realistic style during filming in Moscow in 2016. Although Zvyagintsev said he had no interest in politics, he incorporated a skeptical view of the police into the film. Themes include parental neglect, the state of lovelessness or nelyubov, and bleak environments.

Loveless opened to critical acclaim and won the Jury Prize at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival. Critics viewed it as a gripping story of a family crisis and a statement on life in Russia. It won two European Film Awards, including Best Cinematographer for Krichman, as well as the César Award for Best Foreign Film, and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.

## Plot

October 2012, Moscow. Children are leaving school. A twelve-year-old boy named Alyosha walks along a path through a wooded area on the outskirts of town. He throws a strip of tape onto a tree. His parents, Zhenya and Boris, are divorcing and are trying to sell their apartment. Both parents have new relationships: Boris with Masha, a young woman who is pregnant with his child; and Zhenya with Anton, an older and wealthier man with an adult daughter. Alyosha overhears a fight between his parents, neither of whom claim to want him and are considering placing him in an orphanage.

One day after spending most of the night with Anton, Zhenya realizes Alyosha has not been seen since the day before. The police believe Alyosha has run away and will return home within a day or two. When Alyosha does not return, a volunteer group specializing in the rescue of missing persons takes over the case and begins searching for the boy. The only relative Alyosha could have sought refuge with is Zhenya's estranged mother, who lives several hours away. Boris and Zhenya visit Zhenya's mother; their trip is punctuated by arguments and they do not find any clues as to Alyosha's whereabouts. On the return journey home, Zhenya and Boris argue again; Zhenya says her marriage to Boris while pregnant was a mistake and she should have had an abortion; she also says she feels pity for Masha. Enraged, Boris stops the car and forces her out on a rural roadway.

The police again become involved with the search for Alyosha, which covers an increasingly wide area of the town and its surrounding area. After a fruitless search of an abandoned building that Alyosha's friend, Kuznetsov, identified as their hideout, Zhenya and Boris go to a morgue to view the remains of an unidentified child whose description matches Alyosha's. Both parents deny the disfigured child's body is their son's, though the experience proves traumatic and they break down in tears.

Some time passes; Boris and Zhenya's apartment has been sold, and workers dismantle wall hangings and appliances in Alyosha's old room. On the streets, missing-person posters of Alyosha are looking old and faded. In 2015, Boris now lives with Masha and their infant son, whom he treats coldly, while Zhenya has moved in with Anton. Three years after his disappearance, on the wooded path along which Alyosha used to walk home from school, the strip of tape he threw onto the tree remains as a surviving remnant of his existence.

## Cast

The cast includes:

## Themes and interpretations

Critic Adam Nayman argued the theme of Loveless is "neglect" and that Alyosha represents "the lost innocence of a society deep in the throes of self-absorption". The Financial Times's Raphael Abraham stated that while Zhenya and Boris are humanized, they are "at best distracted, at worst criminally neglectful". Alyosha may be exemplary of "the unwanted or unacknowledged child" frequently seen in Zvyagintsev's filmography, according to reviewer Anthony Lane. Eric Hynes summarized Boris's and Zhenya's flaws as being "vacuity", "self-regard" and "selfhatred". Film Journal writer Simi Horwitz also said Zhenya is a narcissist "guiding prospective apartment buyers through it as if [Alyosha] were not there". The story is told with "intense domestic detail" compared to the work of Ingmar Bergman and August Strindberg.

In his review, Mark Kermode judged the police as "uncaring and ineffectual", saying this reflects a theme common throughout Zvyagintsev's work, but added the search-and-rescue team offered a contrast; "The volunteers are decent and driven, their stoical mission at odds with the dehumanising cycle of suburban life". Kermode added that Zhenya and Boris only become more resentful after Alyosha goes missing, escalating their "lovelessness", "the state ... in which (we are told) one simply cannot live". Hynes argued Boris and Zhenya do not develop as characters after Alyosha goes missing but are made aware of the "abyss" within themselves. Critic Leslie Felperin said the source of Zhenya's bitterness is revealed in her background when she visits her mother. Zhenya's mother may also live in a state of nelyubov ("lovelessness" in the English translation) according to critic Robert Koehler; the Russian word refers to a state of "anti-love" rather than the absence of love.

The settings and weather also feature in the themes, which according to Horwitz are "rooted in a peculiarly Russian landscape, existential and literal", exemplified by the "bleak, snowy day" that forms the backdrop of the prologue. The wintry forest featured in the prologue conveys the "eerie air of a gothic fairy tale" in Abraham's opinion; the use of the cinematography in the initial scenes may also give the camera "an independence of movement"; Hynes observed it "zooming into the split of a tree, panning skyward from the foot of it". Later in the story, snowfall threatens the search. Horwitz also found the interiors of the residences "oppressive and unwelcoming". Felperin viewed the abandoned building as symbolic, featuring broken glass and an empty pool that "starts to look like a mass grave, but one that could never hold all the runaways of the nation".

The Economist considered religious and political themes to be less important in Loveless than in Zvyagintsev's 2014 film Leviathan; while Boris' employer is devoutly Russian Orthodox, this is not a predominant theme and "the state is more absent than corrupt". Boris is "terrified" his employer will punish him for the divorce on religious grounds. Koehler equated the ineffectiveness of the police to the Russian state. Robbie Collin argued Loveless has "vast significance", noting that the story opens with Russians fearing the end of the world during the 2012 phenomenon and closes with Zhenya wearing an outfit displaying the word "Russia" prominently while running on a treadmill. Collin interpreted Zhenya as "a real 21st century Mother Russia, going nowhere yet locked unswervingly on course". Zvyagintsev said "Russia" outfits were popular during the 2014 Winter Olympics and was not meant to equate Zhenya with Mother Russia. Koehler instead viewed Zhenya's mother as representative of Mother Russia.

According to Peter Rainer, Loveless is "perhaps [Zvyagintsev's] most encompassing indictment of Russian society", considering the fears of the end of the world lead into the missing person case. Rainer wrote, "Alyosha, with his pugnacious, beseeching face, is not only a lost boy: In the movie's terms, he also represents the loss of something spiritually significant in modern Russia". Koehler interpreted the damaged family as the product of a declining large society. According to Wenlei Ma, "It’s hard not to see Loveless as standing in for Russia’s wider problem—of the promises of Perestroika and Glasnost and the progress reforms brought, progress that has since been diluted by divisions, apathy and a state with no soul". According to Koehler, the film negatively depicts modern Russia in a restaurant scene in which young men and women exchange telephone numbers and take group selfies.

## Production

### Development

Producer Alexander Rodnyansky said Loveless was envisioned as a reflection of "Russian life, Russian society and Russian anguish", but was also intended to be relatable to other countries. Rodnyansky also said a desire to look at a family was a starting point in the story's conception, and that the director and screenwriter Andrey Zvyagintsev started writing the story while visiting the United States in 2015. Zvyagintsev said the film began as an attempt to remake Scenes from a Marriage, the 1973 miniseries by Ingmar Bergman. Zvyagintsev claimed to have met Bergman at Fårö in 2003, where they discussed a remake of the miniseries. An unsuccessful attempt to buy the rights to the miniseries led writers Oleg Negin and Zvyagintsev to redraw the plot, deciding to base it on news stories about the search and rescue team Liza Alert. Negin submitted the title Nelyubov to Zvyagintsev, which the director said is a Russian word referring to both a lack of love and a dire spiritual condition. Despite the flawed nature of the lead characters, Zvyagintsev said:

> I never perceived them as monsters ... They're just people, like all of us, it’s our reflection, and in some traits of their characters, I even saw myself. These stories come from personal experience and the stories of Oleg Negin, my co-author, and other people.

While Zvyagintsev claimed to be uninterested in politics, his story reflects his belief that "The modern-day police don't care about people". He later said Loveless was "over-politicized". He chose to start the story in October 2012, which he said was a point when the Russian people were optimistic about beneficial political reform, ending in disappointment in 2015. The film also includes references to the war in Donbass. While the conflict is referenced through Russian propaganda, Zvyagintsev said his films are anti-government and that the scenes were intended to show the lives of his characters:

> All this propaganda that you hear on the radio in the film is just the real background which we Russians lived in from 2012 to 2015 because the main action takes place during six days in the October of 2012. And, then we see the characters after several years in 2015 when, already, all these tragic events between Russia and Ukraine have happened. They’re just the real background that we experienced in those days.

Zvyagintsev's earlier film Leviathan, about corruption in Russia, received 35% of its budget from Russia's Ministry of Culture. However, Loveless was made without financial support from the national government because the Ministry of Culture disapproved of Leviathan when it was finished. The producers neither requested nor received any offers of state support for Loveless, Zvyagintsev said. Rodnyansky instead appealed for funding from wealthy Russian Gleb Fetisov and foreign companies, including Why Not Productions in France and Les Films du Fleuve in Belgium.

### Casting

Zvyagintsev said it was natural to cast Aleksey Rozin as Boris because he and Rozin had previously worked together twice. The crew spent four months casting the character Zhenya, for which Maryana Spivak was an early candidate, and she was eventually cast in the role. Spivak said she took the opportunity for a starring role in a film and the chance to work with Zvyagintsev. Spivak questioned whether her character truly did not love her son; she interpreted the role with ambiguity, considering the complexity of Zhenya's emotions. Zvyagintsev's desire to cast unknown actors led to the casting of Sergey Badichkin as Boris' co-worker.

The filmmakers auditioned 250 children for the role of Alyosha and shortlisted around six. They asked the candidates to portray Alyosha weeping as his parents are arguing; Matvey Novikov was cast as Alyosha and the second-best candidate, Artyom Zhigulin, was given the role of Kuznetsov.

### Filming

Principal photography began in Summer 2016. Filming was done in Moscow, on location, in apartments and at an unused building that was used to portray the search. The unused building was an abandoned "cultural palace" found by a location scout. Skhodnya River was also used as a location.

Zvyagintsev and his cinematographer Mikhail Krichman used harsh lighting and a color scheme with desaturated grays and browns. Zvyagintsev described his direction:

> The direction is towards the particular, the accuracy of the recreation of details: that is what allows anyone who watches to appreciate the sense of the work, though the sincerity, the honesty of its approach to human nature. If you try and tackle abstract problems, problems of society or the world as a whole, you’ll never get anything done. You won’t create anything.

Krichman said he aimed for realism in his filming, for which he used an Arri Alexa digital camera that was kept more stationary than its subjects. On average, the filmmakers filmed twelve takes for each scene, and Krichman said some scenes needed up to twenty-eight takes. The scene in which Matvey Novikov runs down a hallway was filmed using by camera dolly; it took over four hours to film because of difficulties with lighting.

During production, members of Russian search-and-rescue group Liza Alert advised the filmmakers and lent their equipment for use on screen. The dead child in the morgue was artificial. The filmmakers used the nude photography of Annie Leibovitz as an influence for the sex scenes. For the opening scene at the school, Zvyagintsev instructed the crew to film the empty yard for one minute before the crew let the child actors leave, instructing them not to look into the camera. For Matvey Novikov's weeping scene, Novikov was not given this part of the screenplay and did not know what his character was overhearing, but Zvyagintsev instructed him; "Imagine you're badly craving something, a toy, a bicycle, and then imagine that you're not gonna get it", filming the scene in eight takes.

### Post-production

The film score was composed by Evgueni and Sacha Galperine, who wrote the music after hearing a synopsis of the story but without seeing the film or reading the screenplay. Evgueni Galperine said the piece "11 Cycles of E" was written as an interpretation of a parent's narrowly-focused thoughts about finding a missing child.

The film was still incomplete when it was selected on 13 April 2017 for screening at the Cannes Film Festival the next May, The crew decided to film a final scene for Loveless. Over the next month, editing of the finished version was completed; Zvyagintsev described the lateness of the process as "extreme circumstances".

## Release

Loveless competed for the Palme d'Or in the main competition section at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2017. The filmmakers and distributors could not find words for the title, Nelyubov, in English or French, and chose Loveless and Faute d'amour, respectively. Beijing WeYing Technology acquired the Chinese distribution rights, and Altitude Film Distribution purchased the rights to release it in the United Kingdom. It was subsequently selected for screening at the 2017 New Zealand International Film Festival in July and the Sarajevo Film Festival in August. In September, it was screened at the 2017 Toronto International Film Festival.

The film was released In Russia on 1 June 2017, with distributors relying on Cannes to build up interest in the film while seeking theatrical showings before online piracy became widespread. Its French release followed on 20 September 2017. It was released in the UK on 24 January 2018. Sony Pictures Classics acquired the North American distribution rights, releasing it in New York and Los Angeles in February 2018. On 21 February 2018, it was re-released in Russian theaters.

On 23 January 2018, Pyramide Vidéo released Loveless on DVD in Region 2 as part of a boxset of Zvyagintsev's films. On 12 June 2018, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released the film in Region 1 on DVD and Blu-ray.

## Reception

### Box office

In its first two weeks of screenings in Russia, Loveless grossed 100 million rubles. In France, the film opened on 20 September 2017 and attracted 10,000 admissions. According to Sony, on its first week of release in North America Loveless grossed \$30,950, an average of \$10,317 per location. In its second and third weeks of its U.S. release, Loveless grossed \$65,457, an average of \$5,455 per location; and \$60,583, an average of \$2,423 per location.

In Russia, the film made \$2 million by February 2018, with 350,000 admissions. It grossed \$4,885,296 worldwide.

### Critical response

As of 20 September 2020, Loveless has an approval rating of 95% on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 186 reviews, and an average rating of 8.30/10. The website's critical consensus states, "Loveless uses its riveting portrait of a family in crisis to offer thought-provoking commentary on modern life in Russia—and the world beyond its borders". It also has a score of 86 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on 33 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".

At Cannes, The Toronto Star'''s Peter Howell praised Loveless as "masterfully bleak" and endorsed it for the Palme d'Or; he said it was also leading in the critics' polls. On RogerEbert.com, Ben Kenigsberg predicted it would win the Palme d'Or, calling it "austere and beautiful, leisurely yet compelling". For Variety, Owen Gleiberman called the film "compelling and forbidding" and "an ominous, reverberating look" at "the crisis of empathy at the culture’s core" in contemporary Russian society. Peter Bradshaw gave it five stars in The Guardian, praising it as a "stark, mysterious and terrifying story". For Izvestia, Kirill Razlogov commented on the realistic depiction of common life and on Spivak's and Rozin's portrayal of hatred for each other. The Hollywood Reporter's Leslie Felperin praised its intensity, avoidance of a heavy-handed approach to many issues—including in its examination of lack of social bonds within a technological society—and the ways damaging relationships are passed down through family histories. In The Daily Telegraph, Robbie Collin awarded it five stars, hailing it as "pristine and merciless", and compared its opening with the ominous prologue to the 1973 film Don't Look Now. Eric Kohn gave it a B in IndieWire and said it falls short of Leviathan. On Vulture.com, Emily Yoshida called it a "dour" film with unlikable characters and a lack of focus to make a coherent point, and said the positive was that it inspired gratitude in viewers who did not live under Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime.

Following Cannes, Russian critic Andrei Plakhov wrote that the film effectively conveys poetry and grief. In France, Jacques Mandelbaum of Le Monde said Zvyagintsev established a dark tone in which the characters fail due to their selfishness and negativity. Le Parisien's Pierre Vavasseur commended the look of the film. For Les Inrockuptibles, Vincent Ostria called Loveless one of Zvyagintsev's best films, commenting on the pathos of the title. In Belgium, Le Soir's Fabienne Bradfer hailed Zvyagintsev as a master and Loveless as lucid and intimate. In the German newspaper Der Spiegel, Carolin Weidner focused on the selfish nature of the parent characters and their lack of awareness of their son's disappearance, and interpreted it as a parable of Russia wrapped up in the 2012 phenomenon. In Der Tagesspiegel, Andreas Busche said the dialogue regarding the 2012 apocalyptic fears leads into a colder period for Russia and regarded Loveless as nihilist.

Some critics compared the Loveless to its inspiration, Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage. Los Angeles Times critic Justin Chang called the film "a withering snapshot of contemporary Russian malaise". For The New York Times, Jeannette Catsoulis commented on the atmosphere and suspenseful cinematography. Mike D'Angelo wrote in The A.V. Club that with news stories about alleged Russian government's hacking following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Loveless showed civilians in Russia are also unhappy under its government. Anthony Lane, in a positive review for The New Yorker, noted the bleakness of the film's story line but found it "so much more gripping than grim". Critic David Ehrlich named Evgueni and Sacha Galperine's score as the ninth-best cinematic soundtrack of 2017, particularly praising "11 Cycles of E" as "striking".

### Accolades

The jury at Cannes awarded Loveless the Jury Prize. Producer Alexander Rodnyansky said that when the Russian Oscar Committee was selecting a submission for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, Loveless's political critics campaigned against it but it remained a frontrunner due to the Jury Prize and the positive reception in North America. Critic Anton Dolin argued Loveless's Sony distribution and Zvyagintsev's previous nomination for Leviathan'' also gave it an edge over other Russian films considered. In September, it was selected as the Russian entry for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards; the Academy shortlisted it for a nomination in December.

## See also

- List of submissions to the 90th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film
- List of Russian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

2017 film by Andrey Zvyagintsev


Ontological argument

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God. Such arguments tend to refer to the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments are commonly conceived a priori in regard to the organization of the universe, whereby, if such organizational structure is true, God must exist.

The first ontological argument in Western Christian tradition was proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work, Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, lit. 'Discourse on the Existence of God'), in which he defines God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived," and argues that such a being must exist in the mind, even in that of the person who denies the existence of God. From this, he suggests that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Similarly, in the East, Avicenna's Proof of the Truthful argued that there must be a "necessary existent".

Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes employed a similar argument to Anselm's. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which center on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early 18th century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for God's existence. Norman Malcolm also revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosophers Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai.

Just as the ontological argument has been popular, a number of criticisms and objections have also been mounted. Its first critic was Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm's. Gaunilo, suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything, uses the analogy of a perfect island. Such would be the first of many parodies, all of which attempted to show the absurd consequences of the ontological argument. Later, Thomas Aquinas rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot know God's nature. David Hume also offered an empirical objection, criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate, arguing that "existing" adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being. Thus, a "supremely perfect" being can be conceived not to exist. Finally, philosophers such as C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being" incoherent.

Contemporary defenders of the ontological argument include Alvin Plantinga, Yujin Nagasawa, and Robert Maydole.

## Classification

The traditional definition of an ontological argument was given by Immanuel Kant. He contrasted the ontological argument (literally any argument "concerned with being") with the cosmological and physio-theoretical arguments. According to the Kantian view, ontological arguments are those founded through a priori reasoning.

Graham Oppy, who elsewhere expressed that he "see[s] no urgent reason" to depart from the traditional definition, defined ontological arguments as those which begin with "nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises" and conclude that God exists. Oppy admits, however, that not all of the "traditional characteristics" of an ontological argument (i.e. analyticity, necessity, and a priority) are found in all ontological arguments and, in his 2007 work Ontological Arguments and Belief in God, suggested that a better definition of an ontological argument would employ only considerations "entirely internal to the theistic worldview."

Oppy subclassified ontological arguments, based on the qualities of their premises, using the following qualities:

- definitional: arguments that invoke definitions.
- conceptual (or hyperintensional): arguments that invoke "the possession of certain kinds of ideas or concepts."
- modal: arguments that consider possibilities.
- meinongian: arguments that assert "a distinction between different categories of existence."
- experiential: arguments that employ the idea of God existing solely to those who have had experience of him.
- mereological: arguments that "draw on...the theory of the whole-part relation."
- higher-order: arguments that observe "that any collection of properties, that (a) does not include all properties and (b) is closed under entailment, is possibly jointly instantiated."
- Hegelian: the arguments of Hegel.

William Lane Craig criticised Oppy's study as too vague for useful classification. Craig argues that an argument can be classified as ontological if it attempts to deduce the existence of God, along with other necessary truths, from his definition. He suggests that proponents of ontological arguments would claim that, if one fully understood the concept of God, one must accept his existence.

William L. Rowe defines ontological arguments as those which start from the definition of God and, using only a priori principles, conclude with God's existence.

## Development

Although a version of the ontological argument 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 ontological argument was first clearly stated and developed by Anselm of Canterbury. Some scholars argue that Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina) developed a special kind of ontological argument before Anselm, while others have doubted this position.

Daniel Dombrowski marked three major stages in the development of the argument:

1. Anselm's initial explicit formulation,
2. the 18th-century criticisms of Kant and Hume, and
3. the identification of a second ontological argument in Anselm's Proslogion by 20th-century philosophers.

### Anselm

Theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) proposed an ontological argument in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of his Proslogion. Anselm's argument was not presented in order to prove God's existence; rather, Proslogion was a work of meditation in which he documented how the idea of God became self-evident to him.

In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm defines God as a "being than which no greater can be conceived." While Anselm has often been credited as the first to understand God as the greatest possible being, this perception was actually widely described among ancient Greek philosophers and early Christian writers. He suggests that even "the fool" can understand this concept, and this understanding itself means that the being must exist in the mind. The concept must exist either only in our mind, or in both our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our mind, then a greater being—that which exists in the mind and in reality—can be conceived (this argument is generally regarded as a reductio ad absurdum because the view of the fool is proven to be inconsistent). Therefore, if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, it must exist in reality. Thus, a being than which nothing greater could be conceived, which Anselm defined as God, must exist in reality.

Anselm's argument in Chapter 2 can be summarized as follows:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

In Chapter 3, Anselm presents a further argument in the same vein:

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This contains the notion of a being that cannot be conceived not to exist. He argued that if something can be conceived not to exist, then something greater can be conceived. Consequently, a thing than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot be conceived not to exist and so it must exist. This can be read as a restatement of the argument in Chapter 2, although Norman Malcolm believes it to be a different, stronger argument.

### René Descartes

René Descartes (1596–1650) proposed a number of ontological arguments that differ from Anselm's formulation. Generally speaking, they are less formal arguments than they are natural intuition.

In Meditation, Book V, Descartes wrote:

> But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.

Descartes argues that God's existence can be deduced from his nature, just as geometric ideas can be deduced from the nature of shapes—he used the deduction of the sizes of angles in a triangle as an example. He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection. Thus, if the notion of God did not include existence, it would not be supremely perfect, as it would be lacking a perfection. Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist, Descartes argues, is unintelligible. Therefore, according to his nature, God must exist.

### Baruch Spinoza

In Spinoza's Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being, he wrote a section titled "Treating of God and What Pertains to Him", in which he discusses God's existence and what God is. He starts off by saying: "whether there is a God, this, we say, can be proved". His proof for God follows a similar structure as Descartes' ontological argument. Descartes attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that there "must be some one thing that is supremely good, through which all good things have their goodness". Spinoza's argument differs in that he does not move straight from the conceivability of the greatest being to the existence of God, but rather uses a deductive argument from the idea of God. Spinoza says that man's ideas do not come from himself, but from some sort of external cause. Thus the things whose characteristics a man knows must have come from some prior source. So, if man has the idea of God, then God must exist before this thought, because man cannot create an idea of his own imagination.

### Gottfried Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz saw a problem with Descartes' ontological argument: that Descartes had not asserted the coherence of a "supremely perfect" being. He proposed that, unless the coherence of a supremely perfect being could be demonstrated, the ontological argument fails. Leibniz saw perfection as impossible to analyse; therefore, it would be impossible to demonstrate that all perfections are incompatible. He reasoned that all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that Descartes' argument is still valid.

### Mulla Sadra

Mulla Sadra (c. 1571/2 – 1640) was an Iranian Shia Islamic philosopher who was influenced by earlier Muslim philosophers such as Avicenna and Suhrawardi, as well as the Sufi metaphysician Ibn 'Arabi. Sadra discussed Avicenna's arguments for the existence of God, claiming that they were not a priori. He rejected the argument on the basis that existence precedes essence, or that the existence of human beings is more fundamental than their essence.

Sadra put forward a new argument, known as Seddiqin Argument or Argument of the Righteous. The argument attempts to prove the existence of God through the reality of existence, and to conclude with God's pre-eternal necessity. In this argument, a thing is demonstrated through itself, and a path is identical with the goal. In other arguments, the truth is attained from an external source, such as from the possible to the necessary, from the originated to the eternal origin, or from motion to the unmoved mover. In the argument of the righteous, there is no middle term other than the truth. His version of the ontological argument can be summarized as follows:

1. There is existence
2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3. God is perfection and perfection in existence
4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
7. Hence God exists.

Mulla Sadra describes this argument in his main work al-asfar al-arba‘a [four journeys] as follows:

> Existence is a single, objective and simple reality, and there is no difference between its parts, unless in terms of perfection and imperfection, strength, and weakness... And the culmination of its perfection, where there is nothing more perfect, is its independence from any other thing. Nothing more perfect should be conceivable, as every imperfect thing belongs to another thing and needs this other to become perfect. And, as it has already been explicated, perfection is prior to imperfection, actuality to potency, and existence to non-existence. Also, it has been explained that the perfection of a thing is the thing itself, and not a thing in addition to it. Thus, either existence is independent of others or it is in need of others. The former is the Necessary, which is pure existence. Nothing is more perfect than Him. And in Him there is no room for non-existence or imperfection. The latter is other than Him, and is regarded as His acts and effects, and for other than Him there is no subsistence, unless through Him. For there is no imperfection in the reality of existence, and imperfection is added to existence only because of the quality of being caused, as it is impossible for an effect to be identical with its cause in terms of existence.

### G. W. F. Hegel

In response to Kant's rejection of traditional speculative philosophy in his First Critique, and to Kant's rejection of the Ontological Argument, G. W. F. Hegel proposed throughout his lifetime works that Immanuel Kant was mistaken. Hegel took aim at Kant's famous \$100 argument. Kant had said that "it is one thing to have \$100 in my mind, and quite a different thing to have \$100 in my pocket." According to Kant, we can imagine a God, but that doesn't prove that God exists.

Hegel argued that Kant's formulation was inaccurate. Hegel referred to Kant's error in all of his major works from 1807 to 1831. For Hegel, "The True is the Whole" (PhG, para. 20). For Hegel, the True is the Geist which is to say, Spirit, which is to say, God. Thus God is the Whole of the Cosmos, both unseen as well as seen. This error of Kant, therefore, was his comparison of a finite (contingent) entity such as \$100, with Infinite (necessary) Being, i.e. the Whole.

When regarded as the Whole of Being, unseen as well as seen, and not simply "one being among many," then the Ontological Argument flourishes, and its logical necessity become obvious, according to Hegel.

The final book contract that Hegel signed in the year that he died, 1831, was for a book entitled, Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God. Hegel died before finishing the book. It was to have three sections: (1) The Cosmological Argument; (2) The Teleological Argument; and (3) the Ontological Argument. Hegel died before beginning sections 2 and 3. His work is published today as incomplete, with only part of his Cosmological Argument intact.

To peruse Hegel's ideas on the Ontological Argument, scholars have had to piece together his arguments from various paragraphs from his other works. Certain scholars have suggested that all of Hegel's philosophy composes an ontological argument.

### Kurt Gödel

Mathematician Kurt Gödel provided a formal argument for God's existence. The argument was constructed by Gödel but not published until long after his death. He provided an argument based on modal logic; he uses the conception of properties, ultimately concluding with God's existence.

> Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
>
> Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
>
> Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
>
> Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive
>
> Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
>
> Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
>
> Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
>
> Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
>
> Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive
>
> Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified
>
> Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent
>
> Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing
>
> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified

Gödel defined being "god-like" as having every positive property. He left the term "positive" undefined. Gödel proposed that it is understood in an aesthetic and moral sense, or alternatively as the opposite of privation (the absence of necessary qualities in the universe). He warned against interpreting "positive" as being morally or aesthetically "good" (the greatest advantage and least disadvantage), as this includes negative characteristics. Instead, he suggested that "positive" should be interpreted as being perfect, or "purely good", without negative characteristics.

Gödel's listed theorems follow from the axioms, so most criticisms of the theory focus on those axioms or the assumptions made. For instance, axiom 5 does not explain why necessary existence is positive instead of possible existence, an axiom which the whole argument follows from. Or, for Axiom 1, to use another example, the negation of a positive property both includes the lack of any properties and the opposite property, and only the lack of any properties is a privation of a property, not the opposite property (for instance, the lack of happiness can symbolize either sadness or having no emotion, but only lacking emotion could be seen as a privation, or negative property). Either of these axioms being seen as not mapping to reality would cause the whole argument to fail. Oppy argued that Gödel gives no definition of "positive properties". He suggested that if these positive properties form a set, there is no reason to believe that any such set exists which is theologically interesting, or that there is only one set of positive properties which is theologically interesting.

### Modal versions of the ontological argument

Modal logic deals with the logic of possibility as well as necessity. Paul Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta note that, for Anselm's Proslogion chapter 2, "Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one." In the phrase 'that than which none greater can be conceived', the word 'can' could be construed as referring to a possibility. Nevertheless, the authors write that "the logic of the ontological argument itself doesn't include inferences based on this modality." However, there have been newer, avowedly modal logic versions of the ontological argument, and on the application of this type of logic to the argument, James Franklin Harris writes:

> [D]ifferent versions of the ontological argument, the so-called "modal" versions of the argument, which arguably avoid the part of Anselm's argument that "treats existence as a predicate," began to emerge. The [modal logic version] of these forms of defense of the ontological argument has been the most significant development.

#### Hartshorne and Malcolm

Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm are primarily responsible for introducing modal versions of the argument into the contemporary debate. Both claimed that Anselm had two versions of the ontological argument, the second of which was a modal logic version. According to James Harris, this version is represented by Malcolm thus:

> If it [that than which nothing greater can be conceived] can be conceived at all it must exist. For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being a greater than which is inconceivable, denies or doubts that if it did exist its nonexistence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be impossible. For otherwise it would not be a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. But as to whatever can be conceived but does not exist: if it were to exist its nonexistence either in reality or in the understanding would be possible. Therefore, if a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, can even be conceived, it must exist.

Hartshorne says that, for Anselm, "necessary existence is a superior manner of existence to ordinary, contingent existence and that ordinary, contingent existence is a defect." For Hartshorne, both Hume and Kant focused only upon whether what exists is greater than what does not exist. However, "Anselm's point is that what exists and cannot not exist is greater than that which exists and can not exist." This avoids the question of whether or not existence is a predicate.

Referring to the two ontological arguments proposed by Anselm in Chapters 2 and 3 of his Proslogion, Malcolm supported Kant's criticism of Anselm's argument in Chapter 2: that existence cannot be a perfection of something. However, he identified what he sees as the second ontological argument in Chapter 3 which is not susceptible to such criticism.

In Anselm's second argument, Malcolm identified two key points: first, that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible, and second, that God is a being "than which a greater cannot be conceived". Malcolm supported that definition of God and suggested that it makes the proposition of God's existence a logically necessarily true statement (in the same way that "a square has four sides" is logically necessarily true). Thus, while rejecting the idea of existence itself being a perfection, Malcolm argued that necessary existence is a perfection. This, he argued, proved the existence of an unsurpassably great necessary being.

Jordan Sobel writes that Malcolm is incorrect in assuming that the argument he is expounding is to be found entirely in Proslogion chapter 3. "Anselm intended in Proslogion III not an independent argument for the existence of God, but a continuation of the argument of Proslogion II."

#### Alvin Plantinga

Christian Analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga criticized Malcolm's and Hartshorne's arguments, and offered an alternative.

Plantinga developed his argument in the books titled The nature of necessity (1974; ch. 10) and God, Freedom and Evil (1975; part 2 c). He argued that, if Malcolm does prove the necessary existence of the greatest possible being, it follows that there is a being which exists in all worlds whose greatness in some worlds is not surpassed. It does not, he argued, demonstrate that such a being has unsurpassed greatness in this actual world.

In an attempt to resolve this problem, Plantinga differentiated between "greatness" and "excellence". A being's excellence in a particular world depends only on its properties in that world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all worlds. Therefore, the greatest possible being must have maximal excellence in every possible world. Plantinga then restated Malcolm's argument, using the concept of "maximal greatness". He argued that it is possible for a being with maximal greatness to exist, so a being with maximal greatness exists in a possible world. If this is the case, then a being with maximal greatness exists in every world, and therefore in this world.

The conclusion relies on a form of modal axiom 5 of S5, which states that if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary (it is possibly true in all worlds; in symbols: $\Diamond A\to \Box\Diamond A$). Plantinga's version of S5 suggests that "To say that p is possibly necessarily true is to say that, with regard to one possible world, it is true at all worlds; but in that case it is true at all worlds, and so it is simply necessary." In other words, to say that p is necessarily possible means that p is true in at least one possible world W (if it is an actual world; Plantinga also used Axioms B of S5: $A\to\Box\Diamond A$) and thus it is true in all worlds because its omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection are its essence.

In the 1975 version of the argument, Plantinga clarified that "it follows that if W had been actual, it would have been impossible that there be no such being. That is, if W had been actual,

\(33\) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being,

would have been an impossible proposition. But if a proposition is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world; what is impossible does not vary from world to world. Accordingly (33) is impossible in the actual world, i.e., impossible simpliciter. But if it is impossible that there be no such being, then there actually exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, has these qualities essentially and exists in every possible world."

A version of his argument may be formulated as follows:

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom 5 of S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Plantinga argued that, although the first premise is not rationally established, it is not contrary to reason. Michael Martin argued that, if certain components of perfection are contradictory, such as omnipotence and omniscience, then the first premise is contrary to reason. Martin also proposed parodies of the argument, suggesting that the existence of anything can be demonstrated with Plantinga's argument, provided it is defined as perfect or special in every possible world.

Another Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig, characterizes Plantinga's argument in a slightly different way:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

According to Craig, premises (2)–(5) are relatively uncontroversial among philosophers, but "the epistemic entertainability of premise (1) (or its denial) does not guarantee its metaphysical possibility." Furthermore the philosopher Richard M. Gale argued that premise three, the "possibility premise", begs the question. He stated that one only has the epistemic right to accept the premise if one understands the nested modal operators, and that if one understands them within the system S5—without which the argument fails—then one understands that "possibly necessarily" is in essence the same as "necessarily". Thus the premise begs the question because the conclusion is embedded within it. On S5 systems in general, James Garson writes that "the words ‘necessarily’ and ‘possibly’, have many different uses. So the acceptability of axioms for modal logic depends on which of these uses we have in mind."

### Sankara's dictum

An approach to supporting the possibility premise in Plantinga's version of the argument was attempted by Alexander Pruss. He started with the 8th–9th-century AD Indian philosopher Sankara's dictum that if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-veridical one) that it is the case. It follows that if we have a perception that p, then even though it might not be the case that p, it is at least the case that possibly p. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible.

### Automated reasoning

Paul Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta used an automated theorem prover—Prover9—to validate Anselm's ontological thesis. Prover9 subsequently discovered a simpler, formally valid (if not necessarily sound) ontological argument from a single non-logical premise.

Christoph Benzmuller and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo used an automated theorem prover to validate Scott's version of Gödel's ontological argument. It has been shown by the same researchers that Gödel's ontological argument is inconsistent. However, Scott's version of Gödel's ontological argument is consistent and thus valid.

## Criticisms and objections

### Gaunilo

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent. Gaunilo's criticism does not explicitly demonstrate a flaw in Anselm's argument; rather, it argues that if Anselm's argument is sound, so are many other arguments of the same logical form, which cannot be accepted. He offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted. He argued that many theists would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work.

Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with necessary existence. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Furthermore, a contingent object, such as an island, could always be improved and thus could never reach a state of perfection. For that reason, Anselm dismissed any argument that did not relate to a being with necessary existence.

Other parodies have been presented, including the devil corollary, the no devil corollary and the extreme no devil corollary. The devil corollary proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm's logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists. The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist. The extreme no devil corollary advances on this, proposing that a worse being would be that which does not exist in the understanding, so such a being exists neither in reality nor in the understanding. Timothy Chambers argued that the devil corollary is more powerful than Gaunilo's challenge because it withstands the challenges that may defeat Gaunilo's parody. He also claimed that the extreme no devil corollary is a strong challenge, as it "underwrites" the no devil corollary, which "threatens Anselm's argument at its very foundations".

### Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument led other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument.

### David Hume

Scottish philosopher and empiricist David Hume argued that nothing can be proven to exist using only a priori reasoning. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Cleanthes proposes a criticism:

> ...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

Hume also suggested that, as we have no abstract idea of existence (apart from as part of our ideas of other objects), we cannot claim that the idea of God implies his existence. He suggested that any conception of God we may have, we can conceive either of existing or of not existing. He believed that existence is not a quality (or perfection), so a completely perfect being need not exist. Thus, he claimed that it is not a contradiction to deny God's existence. Although this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, similar to that of Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lecture, it has been applied to ontological arguments as well.

### Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant put forward an influential criticism of the ontological argument in his Critique of Pure Reason. His criticism is primarily directed at Descartes, but also attacks Leibniz. It is shaped by his central distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. In an analytic proposition, the predicate concept is contained in its subject concept; in a synthetic proposition, the predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept.

Kant questions the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considers examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejects the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argues that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argues, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus he argues that, if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality. Second, he argues that contradictions arise only when the predicate is rejected but the subject is maintained and, therefore, a judgement of non-existence cannot be a contradiction, as it denies the subject.

Kant then proposes that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claims that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).

Kant goes on to write, "'being' is evidently not a real predicate" and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposes that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He states that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argues that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, he claims the ontological argument is invalidated, as it is then conceivable a completely perfect being doesn't exist.

In addition, Kant claims that the concept of God is not one of a particular sense; rather, it is an "object of pure thought". He asserts that God exists outside the realm of experience and nature. Because we cannot experience God through experience, Kant argues that it is impossible to know how we would verify God's existence. This is in contrast to material concepts, which can be verified by means of the senses.

### Douglas Gasking

Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.

Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's disability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist. Gasking's proposition that the greatest disability would be non-existence is a response to Anselm's assumption that existence is a predicate and perfection. Gasking uses this logic to assume that non-existence must be a disability.

Graham Oppy criticized the argument, viewing it as a weak parody of the ontological argument. He stated that, although it may be accepted that it would be a greater achievement for a non-existent creator to create something than a creator who exists, there is no reason to assume that a non-existent creator would be a greater being. He continued by arguing that there is no reason to view the creation of the world as "the most marvellous achievement imaginable". Finally, he stated that it may be inconceivable for a non-existent being to create anything at all.

### William L. Rowe

American philosopher of religion William L. Rowe notably believed that the structure of the ontological argument was such that it inherently begs the question of God's existence, that is to say, that one must have a presupposed belief in God's existence in order to accept the argument's conclusion. To illustrate this, Rowe devises the concept of a "unicornex," defined as a "unicorn that actually exists." Note that some possible object is a unicorn, but since in fact no unicorns exist, no possible object is a unicornex. Thus, in order to know that unicornexes are possible, you must know that unicornexes exist. Rowe believes that this is analogous to the ontological argument's conception of God in the formulation of the greatest conceivable being: the greatest conceivable being is an omnipotent, omnipowerful, supremely perfect, existing being. Nothing in that definition explicitly demonstrates existence, it is simply added on as a necessary philosophical quality in the same sense that the unicornex is given the quality of existence as well. Therefore, to Rowe, there is no way to know the existence of the greatest conceivable being without already knowing that he exists — the definition simply begs the question.

### Coherence of a maximally great being

In his development of the ontological argument, Leibniz attempted to demonstrate the coherence of a supremely perfect being. C. D. Broad countered that if two characteristics necessary for God's perfection are incompatible with a third, the notion of a supremely perfect being becomes incoherent. The ontological argument assumes the definition of God purported by classical theism: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Kenneth Einar Himma claimed that omniscience and omnipotence may be incompatible: if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create a being with free will; if he is omniscient, then he should know exactly what such a being will do (which may technically render them without free will). This analysis would render the ontological argument incoherent, as the characteristics required of a maximally great being cannot coexist in one being, thus such a being could not exist.

### Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; he once exclaimed: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question.

Philosophical argument to prove the existence of God