piss and vinegar
here i'll explain the argument. basically: god has to exist because we can conceive of it. pardon? that a thing exists in your understanding as well as in reality nothing greater than which can be imagined. that this thing must be better in reality than in your conception thereof, and that therefore, the greater of the two, is the one that actually exists, and must actually exist.
at the time Gaunilo disagreed. he said then because he could conceive of a most perfect island, then an even more perfect island must then exist. it undoubtedly does not. waterslides, log-rides, a pit toilet with Jorge B in it. i wish. but no. then imagine you could ask everyone to imagine a perfect god/island. every island must be different, and so must every god. which is imperfect for each one. except in the mind of that one person who created it.
anyway. this person said gaunilo's argument was absurd, but that anselm's was not.. the only reason i can conjure up to explain that is that the writer did not need a proof of god to begin with. the very nature of faith prevents a person from seeking proof of god. in fact, their faith is of questionable quality if they cannot believe without proof. proof is something the seeker never finds but in their own mind, be it in the realm of the spirit, or that of science, or whatever else. too many imponderables to ever get proof beyond all doubt (well, actually, doubt is made by us.. and we can fail to provide enough doubt to properly suspect the proof of something). anyway. fools, all of us. anyway. arguments to prove the existence of god are always put forth by people seeking to convince the unbelievers, unbelievers will always find these proofs to be garbage. such as i find this proof. i find this sort of exercise to be a complete waste of someone's brain that could have otherwise been used on something useful. just serves to piss me off, and add another half-assed ammunition to the guns of christian soldiers. i'm done stinking for now.
