Some object to Anslem's argument by claiming that it can just as easily prove the existence of a perfect island. Let's define "Paradise Island" as an island than which no greater island can be conceived. We can argue that such an island, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For if Paradise Island existed only in the understanding, then we can conceive of a greater island (namely, one that exists in reality too) -- which by definition is impossible.
Some object to Anslem's argument by claiming that it can just as easily prove the existence of a perfect island. Let's define "Paradise Island" as an island than which no greater island can be conceived. We can argue that such an island, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For if Paradise Island existed only in the understanding, then we can conceive of a greater island (namely, one that exists in reality too) -- which by definition is impossible.
No, he defends Anselm here.
Some object to Anslem's argument by claiming that it can just as easily prove the existence of a perfect island. Let's define "Paradise Island" as an island than which no greater island can be conceived. We can argue that such an island, which exists in our understanding, must also exist in reality. For if Paradise Island existed only in the understanding, then we can conceive of a greater island (namely, one that exists in reality too) -- which by definition is impossible.
Just as there can be no highest number, so there can be no greatest island. For every island we can imagine, we can imagine a greater one -- with even more palm trees and dancing girls. The great-making features of islands have no intrinsic maximum.
On the other hand, we can imagine a greatest being -- one unlimited in knowledge, power, and goodness. This idea is consistent.