Changes

== Criticism ==

== Criticism ==

Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, played [[devil's advocate]] by using [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Gaunilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists. Anselm responded by arguing that such an island is not instrinsically necessary to existence because the concept of no greater conceivable being existing would only apply to God, not to something tangible such as an island.

Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm, played [[devil's advocate]] by using [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a "lost, yet most perfect island." Gaunilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists. Anselm responded by arguing that such an island is not intrinsically necessary to existence because the concept of no greater conceivable being existing would only apply to God, not to something tangible such as an island.

[[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence is a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.  

[[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence is a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.  

[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[fatally flawed|flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to property of God to an [[God|existent God]], and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.

Davies insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[fatally flawed|flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to property of God to an [[God|existent God]], and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.

==Repared Ontological Argument==

==Repared Ontological Argument==