Anselm's Ontological Argument

Anselm’s argument did lead to objections as most do. The first was that of a Monk Named Gaunilo, who argued against Anselm’s ontological Argument with the use of the concept of a perfect island. Gaunilo argued that concept of a perfect island does not prove that the existence of an island. In this case that perfection does not imply ‘existence’. Gaunilo claims that if the word God was replaced with the words perfect island, then Anselm’s ontological argument would not conclude that the perfect island exists. The fact Gaunilo was trying to bring across that a valid argument can never have true premises and a false conclusion, as the conclusion has to follow logically from the premises. Constructing a similar argument in which the conclusion is false shows that Anselm’s argument is flawed. Gaulino’s argument follows the basic form as such:
1. It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
2. A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a
As well there is no limit to how great this island could be because the properties that add to the greatness of this island have no intrinsic maximum, so could not possibly exist. Another of Gaunilo’s flaws with his objection is that he spoke of the most perfect island and not the most perfect island conceivable. This makes Gaunilo’s objection flawed as he is not basing his argument on the same basis of Anselm, that being his definition of God. Anselm also claims in his argument that God exists in the understanding, because God is not able to literally exist in the understanding. It is true that God may be idea or perception that we have though and this was another objection to his