Gaunilo's Ontological Argument Analysis

Gaunilo responds to the Ontological Argument by saying that the argument “proves too much”. By this, Gaunilo means that the Ontological Argument could be applied to anything, not just God; even things that we know do not exist. The example that Gaunilo uses is conceiving the most perfect island than which no greater island is possible. The most perfect island must exist in reality and in the mind, because if it did not, then it would be possible to conceive of an island greater than the most perfect island, that is one that actually exists. Therefore, Gaunilo is arguing that by using Anselm’s reasoning, it is better to exist (in the mind and reality) than to not exist, for if it did not exist, it would not be as perfect.

However, Gaunilo's …show more content…
First, an omnipotent God would create an actual world instead of an imaginary one. There could be other possible worlds with less pain or suffering, but our actual world is better because we can actually experience it. Conceivably, God chose the world that had the smallest amount of evil in it. Considering that, evil has to be real because without it, we would not know what good really is. Pain and suffering, and therefore evil, can lead to good. Evil is necessary because, as stated, without it, how would we ever know what good is? For example, wisdom teeth can cause pain and suffering and getting them pulled is painful and there is suffering for a little while afterward. However, in the end, it is good to get them pulled because now there is no longer any pain or suffering. The evil that is in the world is unavoidable for a reason – to show us what good really is. Evil is just a means to an end, where the “end” is “good”. Another reason that this is the best of all possible worlds is that God created humans to have free will and it is because humans have free will that there is evil in this world (because they make choices that produce