Gaunilo's Arguments Against Anselm

The ontological argument, first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, is an argument that uses premises and reason to prove that God exists. In this paper, I will explain Anselm’s arguments for the existence of God and Guanilo’s response against Anselm’s reasoning. I will then evaluate the arguments given by both Anselm and Gaunilo. In his work, Proslogion, Anselm uses reductio ad absurdum to argue that God exists. Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument where a premise is disproven by following its implications, leading to a contradiction or a ridiculous conclusion and showing that the premise is false. We can see that Anselm starts using this strategy in the fifth paragraph.
Anselm’s first premise is that God exists in our minds. The Fool …show more content…
A parody is a form of argument where the subject is replaced by another object, and by following the same logic, one will reach an absurd conclusion. He uses the same logic as Anselm, but replaces God with an island. He first conjures an image of an island that is superior in everyway. This “most excellent” island exists in the mind. Let’s call this island ‘i’. This is Gaunilo’s first premise: that this superior island exists in the mind. His second premise states that there isn’t an island greater than ‘i’ because ‘i’ is an ‘island than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ that exists in the mind. His third premise assumes that ‘i’ doesn’t exist in reality. This is the assumption for reductio ad absurdum. His fourth premise uses to Great-Making principle to argue that ‘i’ could’ve have been a greater island if it were to exist in reality. This leads to his fifth premise: ‘i’ is an island-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought-of and island that could’ve been greater if it existed in reality. This contradiction shows that premise 2 is false, then premise 3 must also be false. This leads to the conclusion: ‘i’ does exist in …show more content…
While Anselm’s argument is valid, it isn’t necessarily sound. The thing that I have a problem with is the Great-Making principle. There are some things that would not be greater if it existed in reality rather than existing only in the mind. Let’s use murder as an example. If murder existed in reality, then multiple people would be harmed. How can that be greater than murder existing only in the mind, where the pain inflicted by murder didn’t actually exist? Furthermore, if God truly did exist and if God was omnipotent, how can evil still exist in reality? How can something who only does good create evil in this world? With these thoughts in mind, I have to disagree with both Gaunilo and