02 Mar '11 16:16>1 edit
Gaunilo attempted to refute the existance of God by arguing that the ontilogical argument in favor of a perfect God is faulty. His illustration was this: he said that if islands exist then there must be a perfect island, for if it did not then it would be possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be conceived
The flaw in his argument is subjectivity. How many palm trees would be a perfect number? What is the intrinsic value of a perfect number of trees? There is, then, no island than which no greater island can be conceived. The concept of the perfect island is incoherent; there can be no such thing.
The concept of a perfect God is not incoherent. Power, knowledge, and the other qualities of God have maximal limits which cannot be surpassed. These qualities are not subjective or intrinsic.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may be having about the effectiveness of your arguments
The flaw in his argument is subjectivity. How many palm trees would be a perfect number? What is the intrinsic value of a perfect number of trees? There is, then, no island than which no greater island can be conceived. The concept of the perfect island is incoherent; there can be no such thing.
The concept of a perfect God is not incoherent. Power, knowledge, and the other qualities of God have maximal limits which cannot be surpassed. These qualities are not subjective or intrinsic.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions you may be having about the effectiveness of your arguments