Primary Texts

• Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion. Translations:
  • Charlesworth, M. J. (trans./ed.), St. Anselm’s Proslogion, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. (Scholar)
  • Burr, David (trans.), in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. [Proslogion, Burr translation, available online].
• Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, 1272. Translations:
  • literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London: Burn, Oates & Washbourne, 1920. (Scholar)
  • Burr, David (trans.), in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. [Summa Theologica, Burr translation, available online].
• Ayer, A. J., 1946, Language, Truth and Logic, second edition, London: Gollancz. (Scholar)
• Descartes, René, 1637, Discours de la Méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences, Leiden. Translated in Descartes 1968. (Scholar)
• –––, 1641, Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratur, Paris. Translations:
  • Sutcliffe, F. E. (trans.) in Descartes 1968. (Scholar)
  • Veitch, John (trans.), The Meditations, in Descartes 1901: 206–280.
• –––, 1901, The Method, Meditations and Philosophy, Washington/London: M. Walter Dunne. [Descartes 1901 (Veitch translation) available online] (Scholar)
• –––, 1968, Discourse on Method: And the Meditations, F. E. Sutcliffe (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin. (Scholar)
• Frege, Gottlob, 1884, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, Breslau: Verlage Wilhelm Koebner. Translated as as The Foundations of Arithmetic, J.L. Austin (trans), Oxford: Blackwell, 1974, second revised edition. [Frege 1884 available online (German, 628kb pdf, maintained by Alain Blachair, Académie de Nancy-Metz.] (Scholar)
• Gaunilo, “On Behalf of the Fool”. Translations:
  • Charlesworth, M. J. (trans./ed.), in St. Anselm’s Proslogion, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. (Scholar)
  • Burr, David (trans.), in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. [On Behalf of the Fool, Burr translation, available online].
• Gödel, Kurt, 1995, “Ontological Proof” in Collected Works: Volume III: Unpublished Essays and Lectures, edited by S. Feferman et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 403–404. (Scholar)
• Hegel, G. W. F., “The Ontological Proof According to the Lectures of 1831”, in Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Vol. III (Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion), Peter C. Hodgson (ed.), R.F. Brown, P.C. Hodgson, and J.M. Stewart (trans), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985, pp. 351–358. (Scholar)
• Hume, David, 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, London. New edition with an introduction by H. Aiken, London: Macmillan, 1948. (Scholar)
• Kant, Immanuel, 1787, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, second edition, Riga: Hartknoch. Translated as Critique of Pure Reason, Norman Kemp Smith, London: Macmillan, 1929. (Scholar)
• Leibniz, Gottfried, 1709, Les nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain, first published, 1765. Translated as New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, Alfred Gideon Langley (trans.), New York: Macmillan, 1896. [Leibniz 1709, the 1896 translation available online] (Scholar)
• Spinoza, Baruch, 1677, Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata, published posthumously. Translated as Ethics: Demonstrated in Geometric Order, R.H.M. Elwes (trans.), 1883; reprinted New York: Dover, 1955. [Ethics Elwes translation available online, prepared by Ron Bombardi, for the Philosophy Web Works project, Middle Tennessee State University]. (Scholar)

Other Texts

• Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1971, “The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Arguments”, The Philosophical Review, 80(1): 28–54. doi:10.2307/2184310 (Scholar)
• –––, 1988, “Presumption and the Necessary Existence of God”, Noûs, 22(1): 19–32. doi:10.2307/2215545 (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist, New York: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1995, “Introductory Note to *1970”, in Kurt Gödel’s Collected Works, Volume 3: Unpublished Essays and Lectures, Solomon Feferman (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 388–402. (Scholar)
• Adams, Sarah and Jon Robson, 2016, “Does Absence Make Atheistic Belief Grow Stronger?”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 79(1): 49–68. doi:10.1007/s11153-015-9532-3 (Scholar)
• Alston, William P., 1960, “The Ontological Argument Revisited”, The Philosophical Review, 69(4): 452–474. doi:10.2307/2183480 (Scholar)
• Anderson, C. Anthony, 1990, “Some Emendations of Gödel’s Ontological Proof:”, Faith and Philosophy, 7(3): 291–303. doi:10.5840/faithphil19907325 (Scholar)
• Anscombe, G. E. M., 1993, “Russelm or Anselm?”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 43(173): 500–504. doi:10.2307/2219990 (Scholar)
• Antognazza, Maria Rosa, 2018, “Leibniz”, in Oppy 2018: 75–98. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.005 (Scholar)
• Bailey, Andrew M., 2019, “Review of Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism, by Yujin Nagasawa”, Faith and Philosophy, 36(2): 275–279. doi:10.5840/faithphil2019362122 (Scholar)
• Barnes, Jonathan, 1972, The Ontological Argument (New Studies in the Philosophy of Religion), London: Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-00773-8 (Scholar)
• Benzmüller, Christoph and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo, 2014, “Automating Gödel’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence with Higher-Order Automated Theorem Provers”, in Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republice (ECAI 2014), Torsten Schaub, Gerhard Friedrich, and Barry O’Sullivan (eds), (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 263), Amsterdam/Berlin/Tokyo/Washington, DC: IOS Press, 93–98. [Benzmüller and Paleo 2014 available online] (Scholar)
• Bernstein, C’Zar, 2014, “Giving the Ontological Argument Its Due”, Philosophia, 42(3): 665–679. doi:10.1007/s11406-014-9529-7 (Scholar)
• –––, 2018, “Is God’s Existence Possible?”, The Heythrop Journal, 59(3): 424–432. doi:10.1111/heyj.12132 (Scholar)
• Bohn, Einar Duenger, 2012, “Anselmian Theism and Indefinitely Extensible Perfection”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 62(249): 671–683. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00091.x (Scholar)
• Brandom, Robert B., 2002, Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
• Byerly, T. Ryan, 2010, “The Ontomystical Argument Revisited”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 67(2): 95–105. doi:10.1007/s11153-009-9219-8 (Scholar)
• Campbell, Richard, 1976, From Belief to Understanding: A Study of Anselm’s Proslogion Argument on the Existence of God, Canberra: Faculty of Arts, Australian National University. (Scholar)
• –––, 2018, Rethinking Anselm’s Arguments: A Vindication of His Proof of the Existence of God (Anselm Studies and Texts 1), Leiden/Boston: Brill. (Scholar)
• Chambers, Timothy, 2000, “On Behalf of the Devil: A Parody of Anselm Revisited”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100: 93–113. doi:10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00005.x (Scholar)
• Chandler, Hugh S., 1976, “Plantinga and the Contingently Possible”, Analysis, 36(2): 106–109. doi:10.1093/analys/36.2.106 (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, “Some Ontological Arguments”:, Faith and Philosophy, 10(1): 18–32. doi:10.5840/faithphil199310112 (Scholar)
• Charlesworth, M. J., 1965, Introduction and philosophical commentary, in St. Anselm’s Proslogion, M. J. Charlesworth (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Collin, James Henry, 2022, “The Reverse Ontological Argument”, Analysis, 82(3): 410–416. doi:10.1093/analys/anab077 (Scholar)
• Conee, Earl, 2013, “Conceiving Absolute Greatness”, in Goldschmidt 2013: 110–127 (ch. 7). (Scholar)
• Crocker, Sylvia Fleming, 1972, “The Ontological Significance of Anselm’s Proslogion”, The Modern Schoolman, 50(1): 33–56. doi:10.5840/schoolman19725013 (Scholar)
• Cumming, Andrew C., 2014, The Ontological Proof in Anselm and Hegel: One Proof, Different Versions? Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. (Scholar)
• Diamond, Cora, 1977, “Riddles and Anselm’s Riddle, Part I”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 51(1): 143–168. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/51.1.143 (Scholar)
• Dombrowski, Daniel A., 2006, Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498916 (Scholar)
• Draper, Paul, 1989, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists”, Noûs, 23(3): 331–350. doi:10.2307/2215486 (Scholar)
• Dummett, Michael, 1983 [1993], “Existence”, in Humans, Meanings and Existences (Jadavpur Studies in Philosophy), D. P. Chattopadhyaya (ed.), Delhi: Macmillan India. Reprinted in his The Seas of Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 277–307 (essay 12). doi:10.1093/0198236212.003.0012 (Scholar)
• Erasmus, Jacobus, 2022, “Why It Is Difficult To Defend the Plantinga‐Type Ontological Argument”, The Heythrop Journal, 63(2): 196–209. doi:10.1111/heyj.13682 (Scholar)
• Everitt, Nicholas, 2004, The Non-Existence of God (Toronto Studies in Theology 1), London/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203643785 (Scholar)
• Ferreira, M. Jamie, 1983, “Kant’s Postulate: The Possibility or the Existence of God?”, Kant-Studien, 74(1): 75–80. (Scholar)
• Findlay, J. N., 1948, “Can God’s Existence Be Disproved?”, Mind, 57(226): 176–183. doi:10.1093/mind/lvii.226.176 (Scholar)
• Forgie, J. William, 1994, “Pike’s Mystic Union and the Possibility of Theistic Experience”, Religious Studies, 30(2): 231–242. doi:10.1017/s0034412500001517 (Scholar)
• Garbacz, Paweł, 2012, “PROVER9’s Simplification Explained Away”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(3): 585–592. doi:10.1080/00048402.2011.636177
• Garcia, Laura, 2008, “Ontological Arguments for God’s Existence”, in Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, second edition, Kelly James Clark (ed.), Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, pp. 16–28 (in ch. 1). (Scholar)
• Goldschmidt, Tyron (ed.), 2013, The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing? (Routledge Studies in Metaphysics 6), New York/London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203104323 (Scholar)
• –––, 2020, Ontological Arguments (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108686990 (Scholar)
• Grant, W. Matthews, 2019, Free Will and God’s Universal Causality: The Dual Sources Account (Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion), London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic. (Scholar)
• Grey, William, 2000, “Gasking’s Proof”, Analysis, 60(4): 368–370. doi:10.1093/analys/60.4.368 (Scholar)
• Grim, Patrick, 1982, “Against a Deontic Argument for God’s Existence”, Analysis, 42(3): 171–174. doi:10.1093/analys/42.3.171 (Scholar)
• Haight, David and Marjorie Haight, 1970, “An Ontological Argument for the Devil”:, Monist, 54(2): 218–220. doi:10.5840/monist197054217 (Scholar)
• Hale, Bob, 2013, Necessary Beings: An Essay on Ontology, Modality, and the Relations between Them, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669578.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Harrelson, Kevin J., 2009, The Ontological Argument from Descartes to Hegel, Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. (Scholar)
• Hartshorne, Charles, 1941, Man’s Vision of God, and the Logic of Theism, Chicago, New York: Willett, Clark & Company. (Scholar)
• –––, 1965, Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence (The Open Court Library of Philosophy), La Salle, IL: Open Court. (Scholar)
• Hausmann, Marco, 2022, “The Actual Challenge for the Ontological Argument”, Analysis, 82(2): 222–230. doi:10.1093/analys/anab075 (Scholar)
• Hazen, A.P., 1998, “On Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76(3): 361–377. doi:10.1080/00048409812348501 (Scholar)
• Henle, Paul, 1961, “Uses of the Ontological Argument”, The Philosophical Review, 70(1): 102–109. doi:10.2307/2183409 (Scholar)
• Hinst, Peter, 2014, “A Logical Analysis of the Main Argument in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion by Anselm of Canterbury”, History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis, 17(1): 22–44. doi:10.30965/26664275-01701003 (Scholar)
• Holopainen, Toivo J., 2020, A Historical Study of Anselm’s ‘Proslogion’: Argument, Devotion and Rhetoric (Anselm Studies and Texts 2), Leiden/Boston: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004426665 (Scholar)
• Houlgate, Stephen, 2005, The Opening of Hegel’s Logic: From Being to Infinity, West Lafayette: Purdue University Press. (Scholar)
• Huemer, Michael, 2016, Approaching Infinity, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137560872 (Scholar)
• Johnston, Mark, 1992, “Explanation, Response-Dependence, and Judgement-Dependence”, in Response-Dependent Concepts (Working Papers in Philosophy 1), Peter Menzies (ed.), Canberra: Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 123–183. (Scholar)
• Kordig, Carl R., 1981, “A Deontic Argument for God’s Existence”, Noûs, 15(2): 207–208. doi:10.2307/2215324 (Scholar)
• Kovač, Srećko, 2003, “Some Weakened Gödelian Ontological Systems”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32(6): 565–588. doi:10.1023/b:logi.0000003927.84602.4b (Scholar)
• Kreines, James, 2006, “Hegel’s Metaphysics: Changing the Debate”, Philosophy Compass, 1: 466–80. (Scholar)
• Kvanvig, Jonathan L., 2018, “Review of Maximal God: A New Defense of Perfect Being Theism, by Yujin Nagasawa”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2018-05-01. [Kvanvig 2018 available online] (Scholar)
• La Croix, Richard R., 1972, Proslogion II and III: A Third Interpretation of Anselm’s Argument, Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004611023 (Scholar)
• Leftow, Brian, 1991, Time and Eternity (Cornell Studies in the Philosophy of Religion), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2005, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, William J. Wainwright (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 80–115. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195331356.003.0005 (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, God and Necessity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263356.001.0001 (Scholar)
• –––, 2022, Anselm’s Argument: Divine Necessity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192896926.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Lewis, David, 1970, “Anselm and Actuality”, Noûs, 4(2): 175–188. doi:10.2307/2214320 (Scholar)
• Lowe, E. J., 2007, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Chad V. Meister and Paul Copan (eds), London/New York: Routledge, 331–340. (Scholar)
• Malcolm, Norman, 1960, “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments”, The Philosophical Review, 69(1): 41–62. doi:10.2307/2182266 (Scholar)
• Mann, William E., 1972, “The Ontological Presuppositions of the Ontological Argument”, The Review of Metaphysics, 26(2): 260–277. (Scholar)
• Martin, Michael, 1990, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. (Scholar)
• Matthews, Gareth B., 2005, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann (ed.), Malden, MA: Blackwell, 80–102. doi:10.1002/9780470756638.ch4 (Scholar)
• Matthews, Gareth B. and Lynne Rudder Baker, 2010, “The Ontological Argument Simplified”, Analysis, 70(2): 210–212. doi:10.1093/analys/anp164 (Scholar)
• Maydole, Robert E., 2009, “The Ontological Argument”, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds), Chichester/Malden, MA: Blackwell, 553–592. doi:10.1002/9781444308334.ch10 (Scholar)
• McDonough, Richard, 2016, “The Gale–Pruss Cosmological Argument: Tractarian and Advaita Hindu Objections”, Religious Studies, 52(4): 513–523. doi:10.1017/s0034412516000123 (Scholar)
• McDowell, John H., 2006, “The Apperceptive I and the Empirical Self: Towards a Heterodox Reading of ‘Lordship and Bondage’ in Hegel’s Phenomenology”, in Hegel: New Directions, edited by Katerina Deligiogi, Cheham: Acumen, 33–48. (Scholar)
• McGinn, Bernard, 2005, “Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam”, in Encyclopedia of Religion, 15 volumes, Lindsay Jones (ed.), second edition,, Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 9: 6334–6341. (Scholar)
• McIntosh, C. A., 2021, “A Defense of Modal Appearances”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 89(3): 243–261. doi:10.1007/s11153-020-09779-3 (Scholar)
• Millican, Peter, 2004, “The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm’s Argument”, Mind, 113(451): 437–476. doi:10.1093/mind/113.451.437 (Scholar)
• Murphy, Mark C., 2017, God’s Own Ethics: Norms of Divine Agency and the Argument from Evil, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198796916.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Nagasawa, Yujin, 2017, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198758686.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Nolan, Lawrence, 2018, “Descartes”, in Oppy 2018: 53–74. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.004 (Scholar)
• Oppenheimer, Paul E. and Edward N. Zalta, 1991, “On the Logic of the Ontological Argument”, in Philosophical Perspectives 5: The Philosophy of Religion, James Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, pp. 509–529 [Oppenheimer and Zalta 1991 Preprint available online]. doi:10.2307/2214107 (Scholar)
• –––, 2011, “A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89(2): 333–349. doi:10.1080/00048401003674482 (Scholar)
• Oppy, Graham, 1995, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663840 (Scholar)
• –––, 1996, “Godelian Ontological Arguments”, Analysis, 56(4): 226–230. doi:10.1093/analys/56.4.226 (Scholar)
• –––, 2000, “Response to Gettings”, Analysis, 60(4): 363–367. doi:10.1093/analys/60.4.363 (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, Arguing about Gods, New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498978 (Scholar)
• –––, 2008, “The Ontological Argument”, in Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues, Paul Copan and Chad V. Meister (eds), Malden, MA: Blackwell, 112–126. (Scholar)
• –––, 2011, “Perfection, near-Perfection, Maximality, and Anselmian Theism”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69(2): 119–138. doi:10.1007/s11153-010-9268-z (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “Pruss, Motivational Centrality, and Probabilities Attached to Possibility Premises in Modal Ontological Arguments”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 4(2): 65–85. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v4i2.296 (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, “Ultimate Naturalistic Causal Explanations”, in Goldschmidt 2013: 46–63 (ch. 3). (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “The Ontological Arguments”, in Philosophy: Religion, Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 51–64. (Scholar)
• ––– (ed.), 2018, Ontological Arguments (Classic Philosophical Arguments), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316402443
• Oppy, Graham and Kenneth L. Pearce, 2021, Is There a God?: A Debate (Little Debates about Big Questions), New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003216797 (Scholar)
• Pippin, Robert, B., 1989, Hegel’s Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Plantinga, Alvin, 1967, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Contemporary Philosophy), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1974, The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198244142.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Priest, Graham, 2018, “Characterisation, Existence and Necessity”, in Oppy 2018: 250–269. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.014 (Scholar)
• Pruss, Alexander R., 2001, “Śamkara’s Principle and Two Ontomystical Arguments”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 49(2): 111–120. doi:10.1023/A:1017582721225
• –––, 2009, “A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved”, Religious Studies, 45(3): 347–353. doi:10.1017/s0034412509990072 (Scholar)
• –––, 2010, “The Ontological Argument and the Motivational Centres of Lives”, Religious Studies, 46(2): 233–249. doi:10.1017/s0034412509990400 (Scholar)
• –––, 2018a, “Gödel”, in Oppy 2018: 139–154. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.008
• –––, 2018b, Infinity, Causation, and Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198810339.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Pruss, Alexander R. and Joshua L. Rasmussen, 2018, Necessary Existence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198746898.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Rasmussen, Joshua, 2014, “Continuity as a Guide to Possibility”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(3): 525–538. doi:10.1080/00048402.2013.860608 (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Could God Fail to Exist?”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 8(3): 159–177. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v8i3.1692 (Scholar)
• –––, 2018, “Plantinga”, in Oppy 2018: 176–194. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.010 (Scholar)
• –––, 2019, How Reason Can Lead to God: A Philosopher’s Bridge to Faith, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. (Scholar)
• Rasmussen, Joshua and Felipe Leon, 2019, Is God the Best Explanation of Things? A Dialogue, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23752-3 (Scholar)
• Redding, Paul, 2020, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/hegel/>. (Scholar)
• Redding, Paul and Paolo Diego Bubbio, 2014, “Hegel and the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God”, Religious Studies, 50(4): 465–486. doi:10.1017/s0034412514000080 (Scholar)
• Rescher, Nicholas, 1959, “The Ontological Proof Revisited”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 37(2): 138–148. doi:10.1080/00048405985200151 (Scholar)
• Rosen, Michael, 1984, Hegel’s Dialectic and its Criticism Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Scholar)
• Ross, James F., 1969, Philosophical Theology, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Scholar)
• Rowe, William L., 1989, “The Ontological Argument”, in Reason and Responsibility, seventh edition, Joel Feinberg (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 8–17. (Scholar)
• Russell, Bertrand, 1946, The History Of Western Philosophy, London: Allen & Unwin. (Scholar)
• Salmon, Nathan, 1987, “Existence”, in Philosophical Perspectives 1: Metaphysics, James Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview: 49–108. doi:10.2307/2214143 (Scholar)
• –––, 1989, “The Logic of What Might Have Been”, The Philosophical Review, 98(1): 3–34. doi:10.2307/2185369 (Scholar)
• Schaffer, Jonathan, 2010, “Monism: The Priority of the Whole”, The Philosophical Review, 119(1): 31–76. doi:10.1215/00318108-2009-025 (Scholar)
• Schmid, Joseph C, 2023, “Symmetry’s Revenge”, Analysis, 83(4): 723–731. doi:10.1093/analys/anad021 (Scholar)
• Schmid, Joseph C. and Daniel J. Linford, 2023, Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs, Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2 (Scholar)
• Siegwart, Geo, 2014, “Gaunilo Parodies Anselm: An Extraordinary Job for the Interpreter”, in Theory and Practice of Logical Reconstruction: Anselm as a Model Case (Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy / Philosophiegeschichte Und Logische Analyse 17), Friedrich Reinmuth, Geo Siegwart, and Christian Tapp (eds), Paderborn: Brill | mentis, 45–71. doi:10.30965/9783957439468_006 (Scholar)
• Smart, J. J. C., 1955, “The Existence of God”, in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (eds), London: SCM Press, 28–46. (Scholar)
• Smith, A. D., 2014, Anselm’s Other Argument (Theory of Knowledge), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
• Smullyan, Raymond, 1983, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies, New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Scholar)
• Sobel, Jordan Howard, 1987, “Gödel’s Ontological Proof”, in On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright, Judith Jarvis Thomson (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 241–261.
• –––, 2004, Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511497988 (Scholar)
• Speaks, Jeff, 2018, The Greatest Possible Being, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198826811.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Spencer, Daniel, 2021, “The Challenge of Mysticism: A Primer from a Christian Perspective”, Sophia, 60(4): 1027–1045. doi:10.1007/s11841-020-00822-4 (Scholar)
• –––, 2022, “Mysticism Monistic and Theistic: A Probing Argument and Pike’s Case for Phenomenological Distinction”, Philosophia Christi, 24(1): 65–84. doi:10.5840/pc20222418 (Scholar)
• Spencer, Joshua, 2018, “Conceivability and Possibility”, in Oppy 2018: 214–237. doi:10.1017/9781316402443.012 (Scholar)
• Stace, W. T., 1960, Mysticism and Philosophy, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. (Scholar)
• Stern, Robert, 2002, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• Świętorzecka, Kordula (ed.), 2015, Gödel’s Ontological Argument: History, Modifications, and Controversies, Warsaw: Semper.
• Swinburne, Richard, 2012, “What Kind of Necessary Being Could God Be?”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 4(2): 1–18. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v4i2.292 (Scholar)
• Szatkowski, Mirosław (ed.), 2012, Ontological Proofs Today (Philosophische Analyse = Philosophical Analysis, Bd. 50), Frankfurt/New Brunswick: Ontos Verlag. (Scholar)
• Tapp, Christian and Geo Siegwart, 2022, “Did Anselm Define God? Against the Definitionist Misrepresentation of Anselm’s Famous Description of God”, Philosophia, 50(4): 2125–2160. doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00502-2 (Scholar)
• Taylor, Charles, 1975, Hegel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Scholar)
• Tooley, Michael, 1981, “Plantinga’s Defence of the Ontological Argument”, Mind, 90(359): 422–427. doi:10.1093/mind/xc.359.422 (Scholar)
• Vallicella, William F., 2018, “Does God Exist Because He Ought To Exist?”, in Ontology of Theistic Beliefs (Philosophische Analyse = Philosophical Analysis, Bd. 74), Mirosław Szatkowski (ed.), Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 205–212. doi:10.1515/9783110566512
• van Inwagen, Peter, 1977, “Ontological Arguments”, Noûs, 11(4): 375–395. doi:10.2307/2214562 (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, Metaphysics, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2009, “Some Remarks on the Modal Ontological Argument”:, Philo, 12(2): 217–227. doi:10.5840/philo200912215 (Scholar)
• Williamson, Timothy, 2016, “Modal Science”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46(4–5): 453–492. doi:10.1080/00455091.2016.1205851 (Scholar)
• Wilson, Margaret Dauler, 1978, “Immutable Natures and the Ontological Argument” (The Arguments of the Philosophers), in her Descartes, Ted Honderich (ed.), London/New York: Routledge, 150–154. (Scholar)
• Yeomans, C. (2012), Freedom and Reflection: Hegel and the Logic of Agency, New York: Oxford University Press (Scholar)