Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ response to Anselm

Question 1

Question: What is a key strength of deductive arguments?

Deductive arguments are strong because

Answer 1

Answer: Deductive arguments are strong because the only way to attack them is to deny the truth of the premises, challenging their soundness.

Question 2

Question: How do deductive arguments compare to inductive arguments in terms of strength?

Deductive arguments are strong because

Answer 2

Answer: Deductive arguments are stronger than inductive arguments because inductive arguments can be attacked by arguing that the conclusion is false even if the premises are true.

Question 3

Question: What is required to challenge a deductive argument effectively?

Deductive arguments are strong because

Answer 3

Answer: To challenge a deductive argument effectively, one must deny the truth of its premises, thereby questioning its soundness.

Question 4

Question: Can the conclusion of a deductive argument be false if the premises are true?

Deductive arguments are strong because

Answer 4

Answer: No, if the premises of a deductive argument are true, the conclusion must also be true. Challenging the conclusion directly requires challenging the premises.

Question 5

Question: Why are inductive arguments considered weaker than deductive arguments?

Deductive arguments are strong because

Answer 5

Answer: Inductive arguments are considered weaker because they can be attacked by showing that the conclusion is false even if the premises are true, making them less reliable.

Question 6

Question: What is Gaunilo’s main critique of the ontological argument?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 6

Answer: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion that God exists in reality.

Question 7

Question: What does Gaunilo mean by “I have in my understanding all manner of unreal objects”?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 7

Answer: Gaunilo means that many concepts exist in our understanding without necessarily existing in reality.

Question 8

Question: What must be proven first according to Gaunilo before inferring that a being subsists in itself?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 8

Answer: Gaunilo argues that it must first be proven that the being itself really exists somewhere.

Question 9

Question: What does Anselm’s argument potentially show if God exists?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 9

Answer: Anselm’s argument could show that if God exists, then God is the greatest being and has necessary existence.

Question 10

Question: What is not sufficient to prove God’s existence according to Gaunilo?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 10

Answer: Showing that God would be the greatest being if He exists is not sufficient to prove that God necessarily exists.

Question 11

Question: How does Gaunilo critique the statement that God must exist because otherwise the greatest being would not be the greatest?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 11

Answer: Gaunilo argues that this statement does not attend strictly enough to what it is saying and is flawed.

Question 12

Question: What example does Gaunilo use to illustrate the flaw in Anselm’s argument?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 12

Answer: Gaunilo uses the example of a perfect lost island, which exists as a concept but whose real existence is uncertain and doubtful.

Question 13

Question: What absurd result does Gaunilo’s perfect island example demonstrate?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 13

Answer: It demonstrates that applying Anselm’s logic to a perfect island implies it must exist, which is absurd.

Question 14

Question: What is the ‘overload’ objection related to Anselm’s argument?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 14

Answer: The ‘overload’ objection suggests that Anselm’s logic would imply the existence of the greatest or supremely perfect member of every category, overloading reality with perfect things.

Question 15

Question: Why does Gaunilo think Anselm’s argument is invalid?

Weakness: Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Answer 15

Answer: Gaunilo believes Anselm’s argument is invalid because it incorrectly infers real existence from conceptual existence, leading to absurd conclusions.

Question 16

Question: How did Anselm strengthen his argument in response to Gaunilo’s critique?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 16

Answer: Anselm introduced a 2nd form of his argument, emphasizing the concept of a necessary being, which does not depend on anything for its existence.

Question 17

Question: Why does Anselm argue that the greatest possible island is still contingent?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 17

Answer: An island, by definition, depends on things such as an ocean or a planet to exist, making it contingent and not a necessary being.

Question 18

Question: Why can’t the existence of contingent beings be proven a priori according to Anselm?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 18

Answer: The existence of contingent beings is not a matter of definition but depends on the existence of other things, so their existence cannot be proven through a priori analysis.

Question 19

Question: What distinguishes the greatest being from contingent beings in Anselm’s argument?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 19

Answer: The greatest being is a necessary being that does not involve dependence on anything else for its existence, unlike contingent beings.

Question 20

Question: Why does Anselm believe his ontological argument works for God but not for anything contingent?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 20

Answer: Anselm argues that God’s concept as the greatest being includes necessary existence, whereas contingent beings cannot have their existence proven a priori due to their dependence on other entities.

Question 21

Question: What does Anselm’s 2nd form of the argument successfully refute?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 21

Answer: Anselm’s 2nd form of the argument refutes the relevance of the perfect island analogy and clarifies that a priori arguments cannot prove the existence of contingent things like islands.

Question 22

Question: What is Anselm’s argument regarding the necessity of the greatest being?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 22

Answer: Anselm argues that the greatest being is necessary, meaning its existence can be proven a priori, unlike contingent beings whose existence cannot be proven through a priori analysis.

Question 23

Question: What does Anselm’s argument fail to address according to critics?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 23

Answer: Critics argue that Anselm’s argument fails to address the central contention raised by Gaunilo, which is that proving the necessity of God’s existence does not necessarily prove that God actually exists.

Question 24

Question: How does Anselm’s argument only prove the nature of God, according to critics?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 24

Answer: Critics argue that Anselm’s argument only proves the necessary nature of God, suggesting that if God exists, it would be in a special way where God could not cease to exist, but it does not prove that God actually exists.

Question 25

Question: What is the key criticism of Anselm’s argument regarding God’s existence?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 25

Answer: Critics argue that Anselm’s argument fails to bridge the gap between proving the necessity of God’s existence and demonstrating that this necessary being actually exists.