uate 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 conceptual claims. For example, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns or viruses exist, one cannot simply reflect on the concepts themselves. If I want to prove the existence of such things, I must go out into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation, and likewise if I want to prove that such things do not exit. Thus in general, positive and negative existential claims can be established only by empirical methods.

However, some things within our human fathoming can be pr