The Gaunilo Argument

To what extent does Gaunilos criticism of Anselms principle succeed in demonstrating that the argument fails? Gaunilo, a Benedictine monastic and contemporary of St Anselm was the first to raise objections to Anselms idea that God exists by definition, claiming within On behalf of the Fool that Anselms argument was non logical and inevitable to be discredited. Gaunilo nonablely claimed that Anselms conclusion that the non- being of God is unintelligible brooknot show that God necessarily exists.Firstly, Gaunilo argued that the have character featured in Psalm 531 may have been referring not only to God but to any number of other things that do not exist in worldly concern. Gaunilo utilizes the fount of some champion hearing about a person from gossip he suggested that the gossip was unreliable and the person and event were made up to trick you. As an idea later developed by Middle Age philosophers who believed you cannot prove from what is said (de dicto) what exists in r eality (de re), Gaunilo argued that you cannot define the construct of God into existence.The most famous argument posed by Gaunilo was that of a stark(a) island which can replace the idea of God in the Ontological argument. Gaunilo argued that anyone can think of the most perfect paradise island for the notion of the most perfect island exists as a concept in our understanding. Gaunilo developed his argument by employing Anselms logic to say that for much(prenominal) an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. The island must therefore exist in reality as it cannot possess the unfavorable position that comes from it being only a concept if it is to be the most perfect island.While the most perfect island can be conceived of, this does not mean it exists we cannot bring something into existence just be defining it as superlative. Furthermore, Gaunilo concluded that Anselm cannot demonstrate that the idea of God as the greate st possible being means that God exists in reality. When someone tells me there is such an island, I easily understand what is being saidhowever, he does on to saythis islandactually exists somewhere in realityI would think he were joking. John Hick 1990) Despite the blatant credibility of this argument recognized by Anselm who went on to including it in later versions of his own book, Anslem was able to respond to the argument using the claim that Gods existence is necessary. Anslem argued that though Gaunilo was right in the case of the island, the same objections were not valid when the ontological argument was used of God, because the island has contingent existence, whereas Gods existence is necessary.The ontological argument remains credible, Anselm argued, because it applies only to God who exists necessarily and uniquely. inwardly his Liber Apologeticus Contra Guanilonem, Anselm rejects Gaunilos argument that the islands existence can be proved from the idea of it alone for the island is not a thing which can be conceived not to exist. Moreover, philosopher Alvin Plantinga suggested that Anselm could also argue that there is no intrinsic maximum to the qualities of scenery that the Gaunilos island could have however great an island is, there could always be one better.Further discrediting the argument posed by Gaunilo, both St Thomas Aquinas and Kant have posed more triple-crown and valid arguments in response to Anselms ontological argument. St Thomas Aquinas, unlike Gaunilo, seeks to undermine Anselms faith seeking understanding as he was firmly convinced of the existence of God himself. Aquinas spurned the claim that the existence of God is self-evident human beings cannot fully understand the nature of God, thus God exists is not an analytic statement.Although we are able to woo an understanding of God, God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind now because we do not know the essence of God, the advise is not self-evident to us , but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us (Summa Theologiae, 1a). Aquinas used the example of the existence of truth to support his argument, suggesting that no one would be able to accept the truth of the statement truth does not exist unless truth actually existed.Though it is out of the question to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth, it is not a contradiction to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, because people are able to, including the fool who says there is no God. Kants argument in opposition to Anslems ontological argument stands as more credible than that posed by Gaunilo as it successfully reputed the argument, diminishing the extent to which the ontological argument is arguably still valid. Kant argued that existence is not a predicate for it does not tell us anything about that object that would help us to identify it in any way.When we are thinking of God we are thinking of a concept and whether this concept is actualized cannot be resolved simply be adding existence to the different predicates ascribing to the concept. Though the argument could be responded to with the knowledge that whilst everything exists contingently, God exists necessarily and this necessary existence can only be a predicate of God, a sceptic could easily counter this argument by pointing out the circular nature of the ontological argument for we must accept that God exists necessarily in order to come to the conclusion that God exists necessarily.Though Gaunilos argument still holds some value as it could be employed by an atheist to support their opposition to the theory, the ease by which Anselm was able to counter the argument limits its success in demonstrating the failure of the ontological argument. Later arguments posed by Aquinas and Kant further limit the extent to which Gaunilos argument is still credible as they offer more successful and more widely accepted oppositions to the ontological argument, posing questions which could not be so easily countered by a response from Anselm. Beth Albuery