E valu ateG au nilo sc rit ic is m so ft h eo nto lo gic ala rg um en t.( 4 0)3 9/4 0a n sw erThea-priori,inductiveontologicalargumentisnotwithoutitsobjectionsandcriticisms,includingthatofGaunilo srepudiationofaperfectorlostisland.TheontologicalargumentitselfplacesemphasisonthisideathatGodmustexistinbothofitspremises,arguingthisasananalyticalratherthanasyntheticstatement,becauseifheisperfectandnecessary ,itisimpossibleforhimnottodoso.Gaunilofindsflawsinthis-alogicalfallacy-inwhichhequestionswhetherGodexistsistrulysoobjective.Hemakesastrongpointinthis,buthisargumentcanberightfullychallengednotonlyandalwaysbytheoriginalholdersoftheontologicalargument,butbysomeonemoremodern.GaunilopaintsthisideaofaperfectislandinresponsetoAnselm,allowingustoimagineourownversionofthisinourminds,andthenquestionwhetherthisisrealjustbecauseitisinourminds.Obviously ,itisnt.AndGauniloclaimsthatthisisexactlywhatAnselm slogicis,butwiththeconceptofGod.Gaunilohighlightshowwecannotimaginesomethingintoexistencejustbecauseitexistsinourminds,assurelyotherwisewecandothiswithotherconceptslikeaperfectisland?Thisiscertainlyastrongargumentinthatitpointsoutapotentiallogicalfallacyandhisobjectionsmakesensewithinbasichumanreasoning,howeverGauniloisstillcomparingtwolargelycontrastingconceptsofanislandandGod.Aperfectislandwecanimagineclearlyaswewouldbefamiliarwiththeotherconceptswithinit,howeverGodisnotsofamiliar .ThisshowshowGaunilo scriticismsoftheontologicalargumenthaveflawsthemselves,eveniftheyinitiallymakesense.AnselmdidrespondtoGaunilo scriticisms,insinuatingthathemayneedtolookalittledeeperintotheknownnatureofGod.HearguedthatGodistoometaphysicalandtranscendentaltobecomparedtoanisland.Anislandiscontingent,soofcoursewecanimaginethisinourmindswithoutitbeingreal.Onthecontrary ,Godisnecessary ,andtoimaginehiminourmindshethenmustbereal,andbasedonhisdefinition,andsoGodexistsremainsananalyticalstatement-hisreferencetoPsalms53:9OnlythefoolsaysthereisnoGodstillbeingrelevant.Thereisstrengthtothisargumentinthatitrecognisesthatsomethingcontingentandfamiliarcannotalwaysberealifimaginedinthemind,butalsopointsouthowGodisdif ferent;metaphysicalandtranscendental-thanthatwhichnothinggreatercanbeconceived.AndthisprovesGaunilo scriticismstobeflawed.DescartesversionoftheontologicalargumentissometimessaidtohaveovercomeGaunilo scriticisms,howeverhearguablydoesntaddmuchtoAnselm sresponse.HedoesemphasisehowGodisperfect,andelucidatesthatinturn,Godmustexist.Thismakessense,however ,hethenspeaksofourinnateknowledgeofGodthatwe,accordingtohim,arebestowedwithwhenweareborn.ThisjuxtaposeshowGauniloevenmanagedtocometosuchconclusionsinthefirstplace,andotherwisewhywouldGodbestowthisknowledgeonsomebutnotothers?Thiswouldhavetobethecase,otherwisethoselikeGaunilowouldbefullyawareofGod snatureandwouldnteventhinktodisputeAnselm sontologicalargument.Asaresult,Gaunilo scriticismsremainmorecoherentthanthatofDescartesreasoning,evenifAnselmsuccessfullychallengedthem.Conversely ,NormanMalcom-a20thcenturymodernAmericanphilosopher-makessomearguablysuccessfulobjectionstothecriticismsoftheontologicalargument.HespecificallycriticisesKant,buthisobservationsworkagainstGaunilo sclaims.LikeAnselm,heexplainshowGodisnecessaryandacceptsthatwhilstcontingentexistencecannotbetreatedasapredicate,necessaryexistencecan.ThisobjectsGauniloasGaunilofailstounderstandhowthecontingentislandwontexistbutGodwillaccordingtoAnselm slogic.Thisastrongargumentasitdif ferentiatescontingentconceptsandnecessaryconcepts,provingGaunilo slogictobeflawed.Inconclusion,theontologicalargumentunequivocallyhasitsflaws,butsodoitscriticisms.Allinall,IbelieveitmakesmoresensetouseaposterioriknowledgetounderstandGod,buttheontologicalargumentsuccessfullyhasthisideaofGod snecessarynaturetofallbackon.Bothargumentsforandagainsttheargumentaretechnicallyunfalsifiable,despitetheircriticisms,seeingaswecannotdefinitivelyknowGod-showninJohnWisdom sparableoftheinvisiblegarden.Andsoultimately ,Gaunilo scriticismsareflawed,butthisdoesntmeantheontologicalargumentisalwayscoherentinitslogic,seeninDescartesviewofinnateknowledgespecifically .