Ontological argument Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===Gaunilo<!--linked from 'Gaunilo of Marmoutiers'-->=== One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, [[Gaunilo of Marmoutiers]]. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent.<ref name="Problems and arguments">{{cite book | title=Philosophical problems and arguments: an introduction | publisher=Hackett Publishing | year=1992 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpro00corn/page/254 254]β256 | isbn=978-0-87220-124-8 | url=https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpro00corn | url-access=registration | quote=gaunilo. | last1=Cornman | first1=James W. | last2=Lehrer | first2=Keith | last3=Sotiros Pappas | first3=George}}</ref> Gaunilo's criticism does not explicitly demonstrate a flaw in Anselm's argument; rather, it argues that if Anselm's argument is sound, so are many other arguments of the same [[logical form]], which cannot be accepted.<ref>{{Cite book| first=John | last=Cottingham | title=Descartes | isbn=978-0-631-15046-6 |page=62 | year=1986 | publisher=Blackwell Publishing}}</ref> He offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted. He argued that many [[theism|theists]] would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work.<ref>{{cite book | title=God, reason and theistic proofs | publisher=Edinburgh University Press | author=Davis, Stephen T. | year=1997 | pages=27β28 | isbn=978-0-7486-0799-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n4zqh10IXXsC&q=gaunilo&pg=PA28}}</ref> Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with [[Metaphysical necessity|necessary existence]]. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Furthermore, a contingent object, such as an island, could always be improved and thus could never reach a state of perfection. For that reason, Anselm dismissed any argument that did not relate to a being with necessary existence.<ref name="Problems and arguments" /> Other parodies have been presented, including the devil [[corollary]], the no devil corollary and the extreme no devil corollary. The devil corollary proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm's logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists. The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist. The extreme no devil corollary advances on this, proposing that a worse being would be that which does not exist in the understanding, so such a being exists neither in reality nor in the understanding. [[Timothy Chambers]] argued that the devil corollary is more powerful than Gaunilo's challenge because it withstands the challenges that may defeat Gaunilo's parody. He also claimed that the extreme no devil corollary is a strong challenge, as it "underwrites" the no devil corollary, which "threatens Anselm's argument at its very foundations".<ref>{{cite book | title=Arguing About Gods | publisher=Cambridge University Press | author=Oppy, Graham | year=2006 | isbn=978-0-521-86386-5}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page