Anselm and Gaunilo, "The Ontological Argument"

Anselm talks about the ontological argument which is another argument for proving God’s existence. Anselm explains God as “something than which nothing greater can be thought.” Therefore if we cannot find something or somebody greater than God is the greatest. The ontological argument is where the questions "Can God make a sandwich so big that even He can't eat it" and "Can God make a mountain so big that even He can't climb it."

Anselms argument is the "being exist so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist." Gaunilo argues that if their is then why are there so many arguments?

Gaunilo talks about a story of an island that is in the middle of the ocean is hard, impossible, to get to. The island is called the "Lost Island" and its beautiful, rich and delightful, because no one lives there and is superior to the other lands. Now the story is easy to understand but does that make the story real because he understands the island being rich? Because a person does not doubt the story makes sense does not mean that the island must be real.

Anselm says Gaunilo misunderstood his argument, that there is a difference between "that which is greater than everything else" and "that than which a greater cannot be thought." A great thought does not mean something has to exist in reality, for example God. Nothing would be like the being or as great. 

Do you think with all of the arguments prove God's existence or are just causing more trouble?

Do you think Gaunilo's critique was fair of Anselm's argument?

When reading did you agree more with Gaunilo's understanding of the argument?