Was Gaunilo Right in his Criticism of Anselm? A Contemporary Perspective
Gaunilo argued that Anselm could prove the existence of many perfect objects, for example, the happiest island, that is, happier than any other island. More formally, Gaunilos arguments were intended to show that the sentence God exists does not follow from premises accepted by Anselm. Contempora...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
University of Innsbruck in cooperation with the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham
[2012]
|
| In: |
European journal for philosophy of religion
Jahr: 2012, Band: 4, Heft: 2, Seiten: 101-111 |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (teilw. kostenfrei) |
| Zusammenfassung: | Gaunilo argued that Anselm could prove the existence of many perfect objects, for example, the happiest island, that is, happier than any other island. More formally, Gaunilos arguments were intended to show that the sentence God exists does not follow from premises accepted by Anselm. Contemporary versions of the ontological proof use the maximalization procedure in order to demonstrate that God exists as the most perfect being. This paper argues that this method, which is based on maximalization, is not sufficient to prove Gods existence. Thus, a contemporary Gaunilo can repeat objections raised by his ancestor. |
|---|---|
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: European journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.24204/ejpr.v4i2.298 |