• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The ontological argument of Anselm and Gaunilo's response.

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐The ontological argument exists to prove the existence of God using nothing but a priori reasoning. In other words, it attempts to prove the existence of God without physical evidence, using only thought and logic. It has been argued by many that it is not intended to be used to prove the existence of God to a nonbeliever, merely to reenforce the beliefs of those who already believe. This is suggested because in the work of the original author, Anselm, he prefaces his work with the words ?[or I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand?. What he states, in effect, is that he already believes, and he merely used the argument to reenforce this belief. ...read more.


A being that does not exist is not the best conceivable being. This is the basic ontological argument. This argument is simple in its brilliance ? it doesn't rely on physical proof or particularly difficult definitions. It merely takes the purest idea of God and shows that this definition must exist. Because of this, this argument has remained on the forefront of the philosophical battleground that is religion. However, since Anselm wrote the argument, many well-known philosophers have rejected what he states. Indeed, in the time that Anselm was still alive, flaws in his argument were pointed out by another monk ? Gaunilo. Gaunilo argued that the logic used by the ontological argument was flawed. He did this by using an example ? that of an island, that for whatever reason could not be proven to exist. ...read more.


While Gaunilo's argument seems to fail at defeating the ontological argument, it does at the very least point out a flaw in the logic. To conclude, while the ontological argument at first appears to be sound, it is attackable in many ways ? two of which are detailed in this essay. Because of the nature of these attacks, it is difficult to remain in support of it. As it is, there is a general consensus among modern philosophers that the argument does not stand in its original form. Therefore, it would appear that this argument has not stood the test of time as well as some would claim. Despite this, however, it still remains an interesting footnote, if for no other reason than because of its age, and the length of time that it has survived. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. The Ontological Argument - Critique

    Kant proposes that Descartes formulation of the ontological argument is flawed, in that he attains existence as a property which a being may possess as a predicate; in his critique of pure reason, Kant describes existence as adding nothing to our concept of an object, "100 imagined Thalers are worth

  2. Outline the ontological argument as presented by Anselm and Descartes.

    Kant also deals with Anselm's argument and states that 'existence is not a predicate'. This means that saying X exists tells you nothing about X. Kant believes that a predicate must give us information about X. The statement that X is, does not give us any clues at all.

  1. Does the ontological argument work?

    Only a fool would deny the existence of prime numbers if he understood the concept of prime numbers, Anselm would say the same about God and that only a fool would deny the existence of God because it is in the definition of God, God necessarily exists.

  2. An intuitionist's response to the question "Should cannabis be legalised?"

    Discussing Sidgwicks three principles, we can find out whether drug taking is right or wrong. Firstly he states the principle of prudence, i.e. immediate pleasures should be deferred in favour of greater pleasures to come. In the case of cannabis, we need to consider the reasons people use it.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work