Summary Of The Proslogion, St. Anselm Of Canterbury

Gaunilo challenges Anselm by providing his ow analogy of an abundant land. Guanilo explains the land mass to be surrounded by the ocean in a discreet location impossible to navigate to. Gaunilo names this island the “Lost Island” since no has been able to find the island or prove its existence. In this moment Gaunilo compares his island analogy to Anelm’s argument of understanding the idea of a “Lost Island” or the existence of “God” are one in the same. Anelm’s rebuttal seems more fitting to win the audience as he compares the “island” to something that has a limit. New treasures are discovered every day but the reality remains that God above all most mysterious and powerful being in the cosmos. Man can understand the concept of God

On the other hand, Guanilo who was an 11th century monk criticized Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. Gaunilo makes a completely parallel argument to Anselm’s argument in which the parallel is about a lost perfect island. Guanilo argues that Anselm’s ontological argument is a failure because reasoning of the same kind would compel one to conclude that many things exist but it is certain that they do not. Guanilo thought that the human intellect is only able to understand information that went through the process of experience. In Guanilo’s “Lost Island” refutation, he used a parallel by replacing God with the idea of a “lost perfect island”. An island that was so great that we cannot conceive an island that is greater. In Guanilo’s point of view, Anselm’s ontological argument only works if the existence of a lost perfect island also works as the two arguments give the same logical form. To summarize Guanilo’s response to Anselm, if Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being were reliable, then we can also give reliable proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable island. He also says that we cannot

Anselm believed in a perfect being theology, and support for premise one resides within Anselm's Principle of God's Necessary Perfection (Marenbon 121). A being 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' is by definition the greatest being, or most perfect being, possible. He uses the idea that 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's mind as a starting point, and seeks to build upon this foundation to show that God necessarily exists in reality as well. If it could not be conceived in one's understanding, then as far as this argument is concerned, it couldn't be shown to exist in reality as well.

Anselm says that God cannot be thought not to exist. This may be because as people grow into adulthood, they are taught that God exist, even a non-believer has considered the existence of God. God is so pure and so true that an idea of a something that created everything could not not exist. What does something so true mean? Anselm says, “So that than which a greater can not be thought exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist.” Anselm is referring to God in the same way that Aquinas refers to God in his fourth reason, gradation. Aquinas says, “Among beings there are some more and some less good…. therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.” He refers to the gradation of things. Some of us have more

As the weakest of the objections, Gaunilo does appear to have missed the point of the Ontological Argument. He mistakenly likens his island to ‘God’ when, this is rather more akin to Descartes triangle or, more so, his mountain and valley. An island needs to be completely surrounded by water in order to be called an island, just as every mountain must have a valley. To remove these properties will remove something meaningful from these entities; Descartes claims existence is an essential attribute of God.

In the prologue of Anselm’s Monologion, he states that his goal is to offer indisputable deductive reasoning for the existence of God. He begins his argument for God’s existence by working through the unquestionable idea, that some things are innately better than others. Using the analogy of a horse, Anselm logically explains that strength and speed are considered good in the context of a horse. A strong horse is equally as good as a fast horse, however these qualities are different in their own respects. He argues that good things all have an element of diversity. For example, he says that a strong and fast thief would not be considered something good, although strength and speed are looked at as good qualities. His argument so far is sound; it cannot be argued that some things aren’t better than others. He also states that good things are diverse and all good things must come from one good thing or a greater good. The greater good is then good within itself, since all diverse goods derive from the greatest good. Concluding that there’s a greater good that generates goodness, is good within itself and is its own cause in turn making it supremely good. Whatever is supremely good must be supremely great which, makes it better and worth more, and so to be supremely good something must be supremely great which, must make it the best, leading it to be supreme among all existing things.

According to Saint Anselm, the ontological argument is an argument that does not appeal to anything known through experience and states that God must exist since there is nothing greater that can be thought of (God I,10). Saint Anselm’s argument has been strongly criticized throughout the years, but the strongest criticism has come from Guanilo. Guanilo states that if Anselm’s argument is true than his argument could be used to prove things to be true that have no reason to be thought of as such. In order to prove his point, Guanilo uses an example of a lost island. This lost island is the most excellent of islands and no island is more excellent than this one, so according to Anselm’s argument since no greater island can be thought of, the

While others have tried to find flaws in Anselm's’ argument. Gaunilo of Marmoutier is one who tried to find the flaw in Anselm's reasoning. Gaunilo’s objection to Anselm's reasoning is that if you use the same logical form of the ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island that the two arguments should triumph or fail together. Gaunilo’s argument of the perfect island fails in reasoning, as a result, it is his belief that since his argument used the same logical form as Anselm’s argument, that the ontological argument of the existence of God should be

In the middle ages there were many ideas of the existence of God but there was one common thing that everyone knew, God existed. Although everyone agreed that God existed, philosophers such Anselm tried to prove God's existence anyway. In the passage Prosolgium, Anselm is trying to prove the existence of God to Ganilo by giving two approaches. The goal of the dialog is to prove that the combination accepting that God exists and not believing that God exists is not possible. The conclusion of Anselm's proofs are that God exists.

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his presence even more realistic. Anselm’s argument, therefore, provides the idea of God’s existence as reality

Based on Gaunilos criticism the mere idea if something does not guarantee the existence. However, the existence of god depends on the interpretation of each individual person. “For Anselm, the issue is that the internal consistency of faith, not its capacity demonstrates its ideas in the public arena” (pg. 15).

Gaunilo thought this claim was ridiculous and that this deductive so called logic did not prove anything. That doesn’t mean Gaunilo doesn’t believe in God but only that Anselm is incorrect. Gaunilo debated Anslem’s views stating that existence does not make something perfect (Roca

He said that according to Anselm's line of reasoning, if he envisioned an island that is beautiful and sparkling and completely perfect, then it must exist. For an island that does exist would be more perfect than one that does not exist. Gaunilo said that we cannot simply define things into existence. We cannot show an island or God exists simply by analyzing that idea.

Many different philosophers have argued the existence of God in the form of ontological arguments. The first philosopher to make such argument is Saint Anselm of Canterbury. St. Anselm argued that God is “something than which nothing greater can be imagined” (Barnes). He believed that there was nothing in this world whose existence and understanding could be imagined to be greater than the existence of God and that even a fool would agree that there is something in this universe in which nothing can be greater than. Another philosopher who argued on the existence of god is Guanilo. Guanilo argued that if the greatest of something (he gave the argument of an island) can exist in the mind, then it must have to exist in reality. If there is something

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. One of the problems that he brings forth is that Anselm’s argument could be applied to things other than God. If the argument were valid, it could be applied to things that are clearly imaginary. Here is where the example of the lost island is introduced. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest