Knowledge reality and nature 9-21-10 The existence of God (4, 5) What is Gaunilo’s critique of the ontological argument? Gaunilo’s critique did not specify any clear fault in the ontological argument. He was trying to show that something has to be wrong because somebody could use the argument to try and prove things that couldn’t possibly be true. He made his own argument based on the same logic of the ontological argument. The argument he made was about a perfect island; the perfect island must exist, if it didn’t then it would be possible to envision an island more perfect than that island, which no greater can be conceived which just isn’t possible. If the ontological argument indeed works than that would mean the perfect island argument would also have to be true. If some reasonably difference between the two arguments can be reached than both arguments would need to be thought of as false. In his critique only the logic aspect was in question. What are truly in question with the
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.