is possible to deny God’s existence without contradiction, to do so is tantamount to misunderstanding the nature of God. If we are to analyse what it means to deny God and say that there is no contradiction in it, we must in doing so appraise and evaluate the ontological argument, which claims the inverse. To say that there is a contradiction in thinking something implies that there is a contradiction in doing so, and by God we are talking about the Western idea of God, that is to say as the most supreme being.

In order to critically evaluate the claim presented, we must ascertain what exactly the ontological argument is and what its key features are which set it apart from other arguments for the existence of God, in particular its non-empirical nature. While the ontological argument has been compelling proposition from St. Anselm of Canterbury, its critics have allowed it to develop into a more watertight argument. From Gaunilo, whose criticisms have shown how important it is to have a clear idea of what sort of God this argument supports, and later thinkers such as from thinkers, both contemporary (like Gaunilo), in the centuries after (Aquinas), and in the modern era (Kant). In response to these criticisms, the ontological argument has changed, especially by Anscombe, and these subtle reforms have made it a watertight argument that means that if one has a true understanding of what God is and entails, one cannot without making a logical contradiction deny His existence.
Unlike many arguments for the existence of God which use empirical methods to prove His existence, the ontological argument proudly refrains from such a posteriori arguments based on empirical evidence, and instead aims to prove God’s existence from the definition alone. At first this seems strange, as this is at odds with our experience of truths and facts in our lives. In any normal circumstances, existential claims don’t follow from c