{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017777777777777779, 'mean_word_length': 5.220994475138122, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Ontological Redefinition

Within the history of philosophy, the ontological argument for the existence of God has taken on many forms, iterations, and criticisms. It is an argument traditionally derived from the Anselmian premise that the conceptualization of God, that being than which nothing greater can be conceived, displays the necessity of God’s existence within its mere understanding. 1 Since the time of Anselm, the ontological argument has undergone several permutations, which have expanded the diversity of the argument’s formulations. In a way, the ontological strategy is better understood not as a singular argument, but rather as a family of arguments that share a resemblance. However, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is the historical home-wrecker of this household of arguments. Kant’s repudiation of the ontological argument showed that, although existence may be a logical property of God, such a logical conclusion does not translate into proving that God exists within the actual world. To reject God is also to reject all of God’s properties, which would include God’s logical existence. 2