Anselm of Canterbury, a Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury, is credited with first formulating the ontological argument in his book Proslogion.

The central premise of the ontological argument is that God is the greatest conceivable being, or the being that has all perfections.

Anselm argues that if God is the greatest conceivable being, then it is contradictory for God not to exist. This is because existence is a perfection, and the greatest conceivable being must have all perfections.

One objection to the ontological argument is that it relies on a false definition of God. Critics argue that Anselm's definition of God as the greatest conceivable being is arbitrary and that there is no reason to believe that such a being exists.

Thomas Aquinas is most closely associated with the cosmological argument for the existence of God, which argues that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of a creator.

The main difference between the ontological argument and the cosmological argument is that the ontological argument starts from the concept of God, while the cosmological argument starts from the existence of the universe. The ontological argument is based on reason alone, while the cosmological argument is based on experience. The ontological argument is a priori, while the cosmological argument is a posteriori.

Immanuel Kant famously criticized the ontological argument in his Critique of Pure Reason, arguing that it is invalid because it attempts to prove the existence of something that is beyond the limits of human experience.

The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, attempts to prove the existence of God based on the order and design of the universe.

Immanuel Kant is most closely associated with the moral argument for the existence of God, which argues that the existence of moral values implies the existence of a moral lawgiver.

The main objection to the moral argument for the existence of God is that it assumes that moral values are objective. Critics argue that moral values are subjective and that there is no way to prove that they are objectively true.

William James is most closely associated with the argument from religious experience for the existence of God, which argues that the existence of religious experiences is evidence for the existence of a divine reality.

The main objection to the argument from religious experience for the existence of God is that it relies on subjective experiences that cannot be verified. Critics argue that religious experiences are personal and subjective and that there is no way to prove that they are caused by a divine reality.

David Hume is most closely associated with the argument from evil for the non-existence of God, which argues that the existence of evil in the world is evidence against the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God.

The main objection to the argument from evil for the non-existence of God is that it assumes that evil is incompatible with the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God. Critics argue that it is possible for a benevolent and omnipotent God to exist even if there is evil in the world.

William Paley is most closely associated with the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of God, which argues that the universe is so finely tuned for life that it must have been designed by a creator.

The main objection to the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of God is that it assumes that the universe is designed for life. Critics argue that there is no evidence to support this assumption and that the universe could simply be the result of chance.