of him. The painter can touch the painting and pick it up or move it (69). In the childs case, if he is presented with the toy, he can understand it in the world and in his understanding. He can picture it, and he can touch it. Returning to the fool, he can see God in his understanding or imagine Him in his mind, but cannot understand God to exist because he has never seen Him in person. He was never able to look directly at God or touch Him or talk to Him. Hence, he questions the existence of such a being. How can this being exist if I have never seen it? Anselms story about the painter attempts to explain the difference between an existence in the mind and an existence in reality. There are two ideas of the existence of the painting and the toy, just as there are two ideas of the existence of God, one in the understanding and one in the world. The painter, the child and the fool have difficulty grasping the idea of the first concept. Gaunilo introduces a short objection to Anselms argument. He uses an analogy of a perfect island to explain his idea. He describes a perfect island in the middle of the ocean that remains undiscovered. One of the attributes that makes this island perfect is that it is uninhabited. He says that this lost island contains more wealth and riches than is told of the Islands of the Blest, another attribute of perfection. He says that since the island is not owned by anyone or inhabited by anyone then it is greater than any other place that can be imagined (70). The island in this case is representing God. By definition, Gods perfection came from the idea the He existed. Similarly, by definition, the islands perfection came from the idea that it is undiscovered. Gaunilo says that if a person told him this, he can understand their words because it is easy to imagine this place. Just as the boy could imagine the toy, he could imagine the island. He says it would be ridiculous to suppose s...
