310 ANSELM(ANDGAUNILO)
something; in another sense, we think of it when we think of the thing itself. In the first
sense, then, God can be thought of as not existing, but in the second sense, he cannot be
thought of as not existing. For no one who really understands what God is can think that
he does not exist, despite the fact that these words may be said in his heart either with-
out any meaning whatsoever or with some peripheral sense. For God is that than which
none greater can be thought, and whoever understands this correctly must understand
that he so exists that he cannot even be thought of as nonexistent. Hence, he who under-
stands that God exists in this way cannot think of him as nonexistent.
My thanks to you, good Lord, my thanks to you! For now I understand by your
light what I once believed by your grace, so that even if I were to refuse to believe that
you exist, I should be unable not to understand this to be true.
GAUNILO AND ANSELM: DEBATE
GAUNILO:[5.] Now the proof I am given that such a being exists not only in the
understanding but also in reality is this. If such were not the case, then whatever really
exists would be greater than this thing already proved to exist in the intellect. Hence
the latter will not really be greater than everything else. To this I reply. Should one say
that there is in the understanding something which cannot be conceived as actual,
I would not deny it is in me in this way. But since this does not guarantee it any real
existence, I shall not admit it has such until unquestionable proof be given. Now he
who says: “This being which is greater than all exists, because otherwise it would not
be greater than all” does not pay sufficient attention to what he is saying. For I would
still not admit, indeed I would doubt or deny, that this [thing in the understanding] is
greater than any real thing. Neither would I grant it any other existence (if it should be
called “existence”) than you have when the mind, on the basis of a word one only
hears, tries to imagine something it has no knowledge of. But how do you prove to me
this has any greater claim to real existence because it is assumed to be greater than all
other things? For I deny or doubt that it is in my intellect or thought in any greater
measure than are many dubious and uncertain things. For you must first assure me that
it really exists somewhere and then, from the fact that it is greater than everything else,
it will be clear that it also subsists of itself.
I have followed the procedure of John Hick,Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of
Religion(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964) and put the main points of Gaunilo’s critique together
with Anselm’s replies. The numbers before each section refer to the paragraph numbers of Gaunilo’s A Reply
to the Foregoing by a Certain Writer on Behalf of the Fool(in Arabic numbers) and Anselm’s Reply to the
Foregoing by the Author of the Book in Question(in Roman numerals).
ANSELM:[II.]...I have said that if it is only in the understanding, it could be conceived
to be also existing in reality, and this is greater. If it is only in the understanding, then one
and the same thing is such that one both can and cannot conceive of anything greater.
Which follows more logically, I ask: that it exists in the intellect alone, but cannot be
thought to exist also in reality, or that it can be thought to exist in reality, and one who