Thus, we see that this evidence logically quite legitimate. However, it Gaunilo criticize - do not

Anselmo Kanteberijski, its ontological argument, which is in part "Prostlogion" trying to one a priori, deductive way of proving the existence of God. He himself admits that he loves God and trust in him, but religion is a matter of feeling, not the (dis) mind. However, Anselmo is considered to be the logic through to prove that God exists. His evidence is the most famous ontological argument, probably because it is not so easy to refute, though many have tried. The most famous critique of the Gaunilova criticism. He attacked Anselm's argument by analogy, and whether it is a good analogy, and whether to Anselm's argument is something wrong - these questions we will deal with later.
To better understand the definition of Anselm God, it is necessary to know that the terminology used Anselmo and what means under certain terms and concepts. The most important is to understand the modal concepts of possibility and necessity. They, usually, the easiest to define through the concept of impossibility and say that: 1) possible testimony he who is not impossible, and 2) a necessary expression of one whose negation is impossible. The philosophical literature is intuitively understood that something is possible because it is conceivable, or that it is impossible that something is unthinkable to us. Therefore, Anselm defines God as a being of whom the greater can not be imagined. If we consider malopređašnji principle that it is conceivable possible, then we can say that God is a being than which no greater can be. Under the "size" refers to what is valuable, superior, better, and not something that is physically large (eg, a being greater than any other, since it has a higher quality). This is important because later, during an argument, catering company Anselm argues that a being that exists in reality more of a being that does not exist.
As for the argument, he can present evidence in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. Such reasoning is indirect nature, to prove some assertion, first assume its negation, and the negation and trying to get a contradiction. So we negate the negation, we have the right to claim A. Anselm's argument izmenjeniji have some form of reductio ad absurdum's. So it would be best to see how that argument catering company looks a whole: catering company
This premise is not problematic. Things that exist in the mind are those that think. They may be possible and impossible, it is irrelevant. Of course, those things are impossible, such as the good fairies, can exist only in the mind. Also, who thinks about God, hear something about him, or denies its existence, it must recognize that God exists, at least in the mind.
3rd If something exists only in the mind, and it could exist in reality, then the matter could be higher than what is topical. premise catering company
Thus, we see that this evidence logically quite legitimate. However, it Gaunilo criticize - do not talk about God, but draws an analogy from the island: we can have in the mind of the island which is greater could not imagine. This island would be greater catering company if there was in reality. Isle of larger islands from which greater can not be imagined, of course, contradictory, and so we conclude that it is the perfect island must exist in reality. catering company Gaunilo held that Anselm's argument is good, because it may prove the existence of any fact. However, I can name at least two reasons why Gaunilova critics wrong. First, it is not clear how a finite being (in this case - the island) can have unlimited perfection. In this case, problems can occur if we want to describe the island. How to look perfect island as there peščanih beach, palm trees as far as how many people etc..? catering company This is known as the problem intrističnog maximum. Also, it might be for someone looking catering company for entertainment perfect island Ibiza, and a loner - deserted island. So there is understanding of the relativity of perfection in finite beings. Secondly, catering company the analogy diverges in one view concerning the conclusion. Anselmo says that the thing that there can be a bigger deal than it is. If the principles of application of the Gaunila, everything to prove is that it is possible that there is a greater thing than perfect island (which catering company does not exist in reality), and that there is no more perfect island. That Gaunilo really knew where the weak point Anselmovog argument, she would not have attacked the analogy, it would be aiming, or to the definition of God and sought to errors in the premises. As confirmation of that Gaunilova criticism was not good enough, we also have other philosophers attempts to overthrow the same, because otherwise any further discussion about it was unnecessary.
WARNING: This blog contains extremely interesting catering company and deep intellectual writings on f