Gaunilo's Perfect Island (Response to the Ontological Argument)

After Anselm developed the Ontological Argument the Benedictine Monk Gaunilo found some problems in Anselm’s logic. Watch as George and John discuss Gaunilo’s response to the Ontological Argument and see if this is reason enough to dismiss Anselm’s logic.

This was an extract. Full video - The Ontological Argument:

For an introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology set, available
Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

#Gaunilo'sIsland #Ontologicalargument #Anselm #philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

Get the - Philosophy of Religion Part 1 eBook, available on Amazon:

[babapur]

Please don't be discouraged by the view count, lots of love to this channel

[Madeofplasticable]

Studying for my philosophy final currently, and this explanation of Gaunilo's perfect island was exactly what I needed! Short, sweet, and to the point. 100% a vibe :)

[joelee]

I struggled with understanding Anselm's Reply to Guanilo until I watched this video. Thank you!

[daimanwebb]

But this is begging the question. You're presupposing God must be necessary in order to prove that he is necessary.

[asagauntlett]

Damn you guys are hitting me with the truth bombs. Absolutely love the channel and the style of the videos, really helpful for both just curiosity and my exams :)

[gracepenalosa]

Please answer the objection to the second premise of the Ontological Arguments.

P2. "If it is posible that God exist, then He exist in some possible world."

How can be a maximally great being exist in some possible world if to be a maximally great being is must exist in all possible world?

[jamesscott]

I hold to the ideation process cannot require anything to exist beyond an idea, , much less a God.
The leap is unacceptable. Therefore atheism is safe.

[panosshady]

Who still takes seriously the ontological argument in 2023? How can such nonsense still be relevant a thousand years later is beyond me. Almost as bad as pascal's wager, but not quite.