Gaunilo Perfect Island
DOES GOD
EXIST
DUBIOUS GUIDE TO
PHILOSOPHY
MANEESHA
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument , conceived by St Anselm, claims it is better to exist in reality than understanding so it would be contradictory for God (the greatest being that can be conceived) to exist only in understanding. Therefore,
God exists!
The greatest flaw in this argument, pointed out by Gaunilo in his ‘Perfect Island’ argument, is it invites parody. He argued that it’s possible to use the same form as the ontological argument to prove the existence of a perfect island; the island must exist otherwise it’s possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be perceived which is logically absurd. If the ontological argument works, …show more content…
the argument for the existence of the perfect island makes sense. The argument for the perfect island is obviously spurious and we have no reason to believe it exists.
Thus if Gaunilo’s argument is rejected, one may reject the ontological argument as well since we cannot point to some relevant difference between the ontological argument and the existence of the island.
However, the ontological argument can be deemed logical in so far as we perceive God as a perfect being. Following
Anselm’s premise that existence is more perfect than non-existence, we can infer existence is a condition of God’s essence since he’s perfect. Anselm’s argument doesn’t work when you consider contingent beings because the concept of ‘perfect islands’ is incoherent; if the parameters of perfection are x trees, then it’x possible to conceive of x+1 trees. The concept of God’s perfection isn’t incoherent- we all accept that a perfect God has power, knowledge and insight that have no bounds. Therefore if God is limitless, it isn’t possible to conceive greater.
Thus, given that the main criticisms of the ontological argument are not why it is wrong but why it isn’t correct , and having proved the necessity to apply this argument to necessary beings rather than contingent ones; Anselm’s argument appears persuasive.
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD
The teleological argument is an argument championing the existence of God, the intelligent creator "based
on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world "1 . According to the theory, we can use the natural world to derive evidence that proves God’s existence.
The nature of the universe resembles a machine insofar as every component fits harmoniously well with the others.
Rationally, we know that the machine has been made with purpose by an intelligent designer and since the machine and the universe are analogous, empiricists like Paley believed that the universe was also made by an intelligent creator, God. Paley took the argument further in response to Hume’s criticisms, and came up with the Watchmaker argument. He theorised that if we stumbled upon a watch, no-one would be foolish enough to think the parts of the watch simply came together to function perfectly. He notes both the watch and the universe are intricate and finelytuned.
To propose that a watch came together by sheer chance is as absurd as proposing the universe did too.
Yet, the theory simply does not provide us with enough evidence to deduce the existence of God2. Furthermore, there exists the problem of evil. Using the analogy of the creator, we question why the creator of the universe would willingly create suffering in this world when the objective of an inventor is to approach the ideal creation. Either he wishes to prevent evil and he cannot; so He is not infinitely powerful which detracts from the image of a perfect
1 Taken from Oxford Dictionary of English
2 http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/themes.html
God, or he does not want to prevent evil in which case he is not infinitely good. This disproves the existence of God as theists know it3 since He isn’t perfect.
Overall, the Teleological argument is rather weak and insubstantial, and does not inspire hope in a perfect God, (the most we can deduce is that he is morally neutral in that he neither creates evil nor opposes it) and this violates the theist theory of God’s moral nature.
EXIST
DUBIOUS GUIDE TO
PHILOSOPHY
MANEESHA
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument , conceived by St Anselm, claims it is better to exist in reality than understanding so it would be contradictory for God (the greatest being that can be conceived) to exist only in understanding. Therefore,
God exists!
The greatest flaw in this argument, pointed out by Gaunilo in his ‘Perfect Island’ argument, is it invites parody. He argued that it’s possible to use the same form as the ontological argument to prove the existence of a perfect island; the island must exist otherwise it’s possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be perceived which is logically absurd. If the ontological argument works, …show more content…
the argument for the existence of the perfect island makes sense. The argument for the perfect island is obviously spurious and we have no reason to believe it exists.
Thus if Gaunilo’s argument is rejected, one may reject the ontological argument as well since we cannot point to some relevant difference between the ontological argument and the existence of the island.
However, the ontological argument can be deemed logical in so far as we perceive God as a perfect being. Following
Anselm’s premise that existence is more perfect than non-existence, we can infer existence is a condition of God’s essence since he’s perfect. Anselm’s argument doesn’t work when you consider contingent beings because the concept of ‘perfect islands’ is incoherent; if the parameters of perfection are x trees, then it’x possible to conceive of x+1 trees. The concept of God’s perfection isn’t incoherent- we all accept that a perfect God has power, knowledge and insight that have no bounds. Therefore if God is limitless, it isn’t possible to conceive greater.
Thus, given that the main criticisms of the ontological argument are not why it is wrong but why it isn’t correct , and having proved the necessity to apply this argument to necessary beings rather than contingent ones; Anselm’s argument appears persuasive.
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD
The teleological argument is an argument championing the existence of God, the intelligent creator "based
on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world "1 . According to the theory, we can use the natural world to derive evidence that proves God’s existence.
The nature of the universe resembles a machine insofar as every component fits harmoniously well with the others.
Rationally, we know that the machine has been made with purpose by an intelligent designer and since the machine and the universe are analogous, empiricists like Paley believed that the universe was also made by an intelligent creator, God. Paley took the argument further in response to Hume’s criticisms, and came up with the Watchmaker argument. He theorised that if we stumbled upon a watch, no-one would be foolish enough to think the parts of the watch simply came together to function perfectly. He notes both the watch and the universe are intricate and finelytuned.
To propose that a watch came together by sheer chance is as absurd as proposing the universe did too.
Yet, the theory simply does not provide us with enough evidence to deduce the existence of God2. Furthermore, there exists the problem of evil. Using the analogy of the creator, we question why the creator of the universe would willingly create suffering in this world when the objective of an inventor is to approach the ideal creation. Either he wishes to prevent evil and he cannot; so He is not infinitely powerful which detracts from the image of a perfect
1 Taken from Oxford Dictionary of English
2 http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/dialogues/themes.html
God, or he does not want to prevent evil in which case he is not infinitely good. This disproves the existence of God as theists know it3 since He isn’t perfect.
Overall, the Teleological argument is rather weak and insubstantial, and does not inspire hope in a perfect God, (the most we can deduce is that he is morally neutral in that he neither creates evil nor opposes it) and this violates the theist theory of God’s moral nature.