The Ontological Argument Of God 's Existence

1092 Words5 Pages
In the 11th century St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote the Prosologion, where he formulated the ontological argument of God’s existence. The beginning of his argument begins with propositions that do not rely on experience to believe that God’s existence is tangible. Furthermore, throughout Anselm’s argument he portrays logical and rational statements to show strong evidence of God’s existence (Oppy, par. 2). The main focus of this ontological argument is to counter the fool’s belief that there is no God, in this case the fool being Gaunilo. Guanilo was a monk of France and was one of many who criticized Anselm’s ontological argument. In Gaunilo’s argument he modeled that just like conceiving about God it should also be possible to conceive of a perfect island (Himma, par. 10). Gaunilo’s argument is in fact incoherent because an island could continue to upgrade depending on who is judging it. Whereas there is no greater God, there are no improvements to be made because he already is greater than which nothing else could be conceived. This is one of the many flaws that Gaunilo has within his criticism against Anselm’s ontological argument (Himma, par. 12). I believe that Anselm’s argument is in fact sound; I will use Gaunilo’s unconvincing island prepositions to prove this. In addition, I will show Anselm’s rational and logical statements that he poses throughout his argument. In St. Anselm’s argument he starts by stating the concept of a “being than which no greater can be conceived”. This statement is one of the strategies Anselm uses to defend the existence of God. St. Anselm has confidence that if individuals understand the terminology of God and existence and also can understand what it means to speak of him, they must then co... ... middle of paper ... ...must result in God (Rizvi, par. 28). In the reasoning given above individuals can see that Gaunilo’s argument does not have a lot of logical information. In which Anselm at least portrays a rational argument that one could easily follow. In attempting to prove that God does not exist there has to be a better argument than the perfect island. All Gaunilo does to criticize Anselm’s argument is to compare nonexistent things to God which is impossible. One cannot just say that God is just like a perfect island because as shown above God portrays many qualities that are unattainable for any other thing or being. Once an individual can physically show evidence that God does not exist then there may be a possible objectionable argument. In stating Anselm’s rational and logical statements through his argument I showed that Gaunilo’s objection is purely inconvincible.
Open Document