Gaunilos Criticisms and Anselms Response.

• Gaunilo background: benedictine monk in 11th centuary. Very little known about him. Was an empiricist looking for tangible proof for gods existence.
• Basis of Gaunilo's Criticism: it is possible to use the ontological argument with the same form that proves an island greater than which none can be concived. Logic of anselm can be used 'mutatis mutandis' to prove other perfect beings.
• 'mutatis mutandis' - by substitution of terms.
• Gaunilo island: imagine island that no greater than which can be conceived. must be greater to exist in mind and reality. island is real.
• Gaunilo argument: if the island works, god also works. they stand and fall together - unless there is a relevant difference between the island and god.
• Gaunilo: anselm argument is deductive but not valid - all toasters are made of gold, all items made of gold can timetravel, all toasters can time travel. - argument is valid but unsound. Same can be said for anselm.
• Summary of gaunilo's objection: we cant define things into existance by stating they are perfect.
• Anselms response in respondio. #
• Anselm felt gaunilo had misunderstood argument: only god is truly perfect, an island can only be a perfect island, not perfection in other ways but not perfect in and of itself.
• Anselms 1st response: developed position on nature of existence itself. Added in understanding of god being necessary rather than contingent. necersary is greater than contingent.
• Anselms second responce: divine cannot be changed, island constantly changed. The island idea changes person to person (counter - can be argued god is different for different people/religions).
• Anselms second response: god is not dependant on opinion, even if we understand him this way. My opinion of a perfect god does not change him in the argument. my opinion of an island does.