Metaphysics of God
AQA EDUCATION
A-Level
This subtopic explores classical theism's core divine attributes—omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and necessary existence—and their logical coherence. It then examines the problem of evil as a challenge to God's existence, distinguishing between the logical and evidential problems. Finally, it evaluates theodicies such as Augustine's free will defence and Hick's soul-making theodicy, assessing their success in reconciling God's nature with the existence of suffering.
10
Objectives
11
Exam Tips
11
Pitfalls
15
Key Terms
10
Mark Points
Subtopics in this area
The concept of God
Religious language
Arguments for the existence of God
Quick Revision Summary (Key Takeaway)
The Metaphysics of God in AQA A-Level Philosophy explores philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, alongside the problem of evil and the nature of religious language. Students must critically evaluate these arguments using logical reasoning and scholarly perspectives to develop coherent, well-supported conclusions.
Topic Overview
The Metaphysics of God is a central component of AQA A-Level Philosophy, exploring the most fundamental questions about the existence and nature of God. This topic is not just about belief; it is a rigorous philosophical investigation into the coherence of the concept of God and the arguments that support or undermine it. Students will engage with classical arguments such as the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, as well as the problem of evil and the nature of religious language. These arguments are not merely historical; they are live debates in contemporary philosophy, and understanding them is essential for any serious student of philosophy.
This topic is significant because it forces students to think critically about the limits of human reason and the nature of existence itself. It also connects to other areas of philosophy, such as epistemology (how we know what we know) and ethics (the problem of evil raises questions about moral responsibility). By studying the Metaphysics of God, students develop skills in logical analysis, argument construction, and critical evaluation—skills that are valuable beyond the exam room. Moreover, the topic encourages students to consider the relationship between faith and reason, a debate that has shaped Western thought for centuries.
Key Concepts
Core ideas you must understand for this topic
- →The ontological argument: a priori argument that God's existence is necessary based on the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being.
- →The cosmological argument: a posteriori argument that the universe's existence requires a necessary first cause or necessary being.
- →The teleological argument: a posteriori argument from design or purpose in the universe to a designer.
- →The problem of evil: the challenge that the existence of evil and suffering is incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God.
- →Religious language: the debate over whether language about God is meaningful, including the via negativa, analogy, and verification/falsification principles.
Learning Objectives
What you need to know and understand
- Explain the attributes of God
- Explain the problem of evil
- Evaluate theodicies
- Explain the verification principle
- Explain the falsification principle
- Evaluate religious language as meaningful
- Explain the ontological argument
- Explain the cosmological argument
- Explain the teleological argument
- Evaluate these arguments
Marking Points
Key points examiners look for in your answers
- Award credit for accurately defining each divine attribute with reference to classical theism and explaining potential internal inconsistencies (e.g., the paradox of the stone for omnipotence).
- Credit for clearly distinguishing between the logical problem of evil (claiming inconsistency between God's attributes and evil) and the evidential problem (claiming the amount or distribution of evil makes God's existence improbable).
- Reward evaluation of theodicies that demonstrates understanding of their core mechanisms (e.g., free will as a greater good, soul-making as a developmental process) and critically assesses their coherence, scope (e.g., handling natural evil), and theological implications.
- Award credit for accurately distinguishing between strong and weak verification, and applying both to religious statements such as 'God exists'.
- Credit for clearly explaining Flew's parable of the gardener and the 'death by a thousand qualifications', demonstrating how unfalsifiable claims become vacuous.
- Marks for balanced evaluation, referencing strengths and weaknesses of each principle and engaging with alternative views like Hick's eschatological verification or the concept of bliks.
- Award credit for clearly explaining Anselm's ontological argument, including the distinction between existence in the understanding and existence in reality, and the premise that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'.
- Award credit for accurately outlining Aquinas' First Way (argument from motion) and/or the Kalam cosmological argument, demonstrating an understanding of actuality, potentiality, and the impossibility of an infinite regress of movers or causes.
- Award credit for presenting Paley's teleological argument, focusing on the analogy of the watch and the inference to an intelligent designer from apparent purpose and complexity in nature.
- Award credit for sustained evaluation that engages with specific criticisms, such as Gaunilo's 'perfect island' parody, Hume's objections to the design argument (analogy, causation, anthropomorphism), and the challenge of the problem of evil to the conclusion of a benevolent designer.
Examiner Tips
Expert advice for maximising your marks
- 💡Use precise philosophical terminology (e.g., 'inconsistent triad', 'gratuitous evil', 'theodicy vs. defence') to demonstrate analytical depth and meet AQA assessment objectives.
- 💡Structure essays around a clear thesis that engages with the question directly, evaluating arguments rather than merely describing them. For example, when discussing theodicies, consider both supportive and critical perspectives.
- 💡Integrate relevant scholarly references (e.g., Mackie's formulation of the logical problem, Plantinga's free will defence) to show wider reading and strengthen evaluation.
- 💡When evaluating theodicies, consider their ability to address both the intensity and distribution of evil, and whether they compromise any divine attributes (e.g., does soul-making entail that God uses evil instrumentally, challenging omnibenevolence?).
- 💡Use precise technical vocabulary, such as 'cognitive meaninglessness', 'tautology', 'falsifiability in principle', and 'pseudo-propositions' to demonstrate conceptual mastery.
- 💡Structure evaluative essays with clear arguments for and against the verification and falsification principles, linking back to specific scholars and ensuring a conclusion that weighs the debate.
- 💡When explaining the verification principle, always reference Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic and provide concrete examples of statements that fail verification (e.g., metaphysical claims).
- 💡Always define key terms ('a priori', 'a posteriori', 'infinite regress', 'design qua regularity/purpose') and use them consistently to demonstrate precise philosophical vocabulary.
- 💡In evaluation, structure your paragraphs around a single criticism or counter-criticism, explicitly stating how it strengthens or weakens the argument, and consider whether the argument can be defended against the criticism.
- 💡Use specific examples from the philosophers (e.g., Anselm's painter analogy, Paley's watch, Hume's shipbuilder) to ground your explanations and avoid vague generalisations.
- 💡For top marks, consider the interplay between the arguments: for example, whether the weaknesses of one argument motivate the development of another, or how the concept of God differs across the arguments.
- 💡Always define key terms precisely and use philosophical vocabulary accurately (e.g., 'a priori', 'contingent', 'omnipotent').
- 💡When evaluating arguments, consider both strengths and weaknesses, and reach a reasoned conclusion. Avoid one-sided essays.
- 💡Use specific examples and scholars (e.g., Anselm, Aquinas, Paley, Hume, Mackie) to support your points and show depth of knowledge.
Common Mistakes
Pitfalls to avoid in your exam answers
- Conflating omnipotence with the ability to do logically impossible things, rather than understanding it as the power to do all logically possible actions.
- Misrepresenting the logical problem of evil as merely an emotional objection, rather than a deductive argument alleging contradiction in the divine attributes.
- Treating theodicies as simple excuses rather than systematic philosophical defences, often confusing them with defences (the latter show possibility, theodicies assert actual divine reasons).
- Failing to distinguish between moral and natural evil when evaluating the free will defence, overlooking that free will may not account for suffering caused by natural disasters.
- Conflating verifiability with empirical testability, overlooking the logical positivist's strict sense of verification in principle.
- Assuming that falsifiability only applies to scientific hypotheses and failing to recognise its broader application to religious language, or treating it as a complete criterion of meaning without considering its limitations.
- Neglecting to consider non-cognitive interpretations of religious language (e.g., expressive, performative) when evaluating whether religious statements are meaningful.
- Confusing Anselm's a priori ontological argument with a posteriori arguments, or treating it as if it relies on empirical observation of the world.
- Misunderstanding the term 'necessary existence' by treating it as simply 'existence in all possible worlds' without linking it to the concept of God's essence containing existence.
- Asserting that the cosmological argument fails solely because 'science explains the Big Bang', without addressing the philosophical distinction between scientific causation and metaphysical first cause.
- Misrepresenting Paley's argument as claiming that the universe is perfect or that the designer must be the Christian God, rather than an inference to minimal design and intelligence.
- Misconception: The ontological argument is an a posteriori argument. Correction: It is a priori, based on reason alone, not experience.
- Misconception: The cosmological argument proves the existence of the Christian God. Correction: It only argues for a first cause or necessary being, not necessarily a personal God.
- Misconception: The problem of evil only concerns moral evil. Correction: It also includes natural evil (suffering caused by natural events), and both are used in the argument.
Revision Plan
How to revise this topic in 1–2 weeks
- 1Week 1: Focus on the ontological argument. Read Anselm's original text and secondary sources. Create flashcards for key terms and objections (e.g., Gaunilo, Kant).
- 2Week 2: Move to the cosmological argument. Study Aquinas's Five Ways and the Kalam argument. Practice explaining the principle of sufficient reason.
- 3Week 3: Study the teleological argument. Compare Paley's design argument with Hume's criticisms and Darwin's alternative. Write a practice essay.
- 4Week 4: Tackle the problem of evil. Understand the logical and evidential versions, and evaluate theodicies (free will, soul-making).
- 5Week 5: Review religious language. Explore the via negativa, analogy, and verification/falsification debates. Consolidate all topics with past paper questions.
Exam Question Types
How this topic typically appears in the exam
- 📋Essay questions asking to 'Critically evaluate the ontological argument' (25 marks) – structure with introduction, arguments for, objections, and conclusion.
- 📋Short answer questions on specific concepts, e.g., 'Explain the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil' (5 marks) – be concise and precise.
- 📋Analysis questions that require comparing arguments, e.g., 'Compare the cosmological and teleological arguments' (8 marks) – use a balanced approach.
- 📋Questions on religious language, e.g., 'Assess the view that religious language is meaningless' (25 marks) – include verification and falsification principles.
Command Word Expectations (AQA EDUCATION)
What examiners look for when using specific command words in this specification
Evaluate
In AQA A-Level Philosophy, 'evaluate' requires you to present a balanced argument, considering strengths and weaknesses, and to reach a reasoned judgement. You must use scholarly views and examples to support your points, and critically assess the arguments.
Explain
This command word asks you to set out the key ideas clearly and accurately. For example, 'Explain the cosmological argument' requires a detailed account of the argument's premises and conclusion, with reference to key philosophers.
Assess
Similar to 'evaluate', 'assess' requires you to weigh up the arguments and come to a conclusion. You should consider different perspectives and make a judgement based on evidence and reasoning.
How Students Lose Marks (Examiner Pitfalls)
Common mark loss traps and how to write 100% full-mark answers
Pitfall: Students often confuse the logical problem of evil with the evidential problem, or fail to distinguish between the logical and evidential versions, leading to imprecise answers.
❌ Weak Answer (Loses Marks):The problem of evil says that if God is all-powerful and all-good, evil shouldn't exist, so God doesn't exist.
✅ 100% Model Answer (Full Marks):The logical problem of evil, as formulated by J.L. Mackie, argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God. The evidential problem, however, contends that the amount and kinds of evil in the world provide strong evidence against God's existence, even if not logically conclusive. A successful response must address both versions and consider responses such as the free will defence and soul-making theodicy.
Examiner Tip: Always define the specific version of the problem of evil you are addressing and use precise philosophical terminology. Show awareness of the distinction between logical and evidential versions to access higher mark bands.
Pitfall: In essays on the ontological argument, students often fail to explain the move from 'existence in the understanding' to 'existence in reality' clearly, or they ignore Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate.
❌ Weak Answer (Loses Marks):Anselm says God is the greatest thing we can think of, so he must exist because it's greater to exist than not exist.
✅ 100% Model Answer (Full Marks):Anselm's ontological argument defines God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. He argues that even the fool who denies God has this concept in his understanding, but if it exists only in the understanding, then a greater being could be conceived—one that exists in reality. Therefore, God must exist in reality. However, Kant's objection that 'existence is not a real predicate' challenges this by arguing that adding existence to a concept does not make it greater; it merely posits the concept. A strong answer would evaluate whether Kant's objection successfully undermines the argument.
Examiner Tip: When discussing the ontological argument, always include Kant's objection and consider whether it is decisive. Use precise terms like 'a priori', 'analytic', and 'synthetic' correctly.
Step-by-Step Worked Solutions
Detailed solution breakdown for typical exam problems
Question: Explain the cosmological argument for the existence of God and evaluate one criticism of it. (8 marks)
- 1.Step 1: Define the cosmological argument: it is an a posteriori argument that begins from the existence of the universe and argues for a necessary first cause.
- 2.Step 2: Outline Aquinas's Third Way (contingency) or the Kalam argument (beginning of the universe) as a specific version.
- 3.Step 3: State a criticism, e.g., Russell's objection that the universe is a brute fact and does not require a cause.
- 4.Step 4: Evaluate the criticism: does it successfully undermine the argument? Consider responses such as the principle of sufficient reason.
Final Answer: The cosmological argument, exemplified by Aquinas's Third Way, argues that since all things are contingent, there must be a necessary being (God) to explain their existence. A key criticism is Bertrand Russell's claim that the universe is a 'brute fact' and needs no explanation. This challenges the principle of sufficient reason, but defenders argue that the principle is a fundamental presupposition of rational inquiry, so the criticism may not be decisive.
Question: Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the teleological argument for the existence of God. (12 marks)
- 1.Step 1: Define the teleological argument: it argues from design or purpose in the universe to a designer (God).
- 2.Step 2: Present the classic version: William Paley's watchmaker analogy, which infers design from complexity and regularity.
- 3.Step 3: Discuss strengths: it is intuitive, based on empirical evidence, and supported by modern scientific discoveries like DNA complexity.
- 4.Step 4: Discuss weaknesses: Hume's criticisms (e.g., the universe is not like a machine, multiple designers possible, problem of evil), and Darwin's theory of evolution as an alternative explanation.
- 5.Step 5: Conclude with a balanced judgement on the argument's overall strength.
Final Answer: The teleological argument, particularly Paley's watchmaker analogy, claims that the complex design of the universe points to a designer. Strengths include its empirical basis and intuitive appeal. However, Hume's objections—such as the disanalogy between the universe and a machine, and the possibility of a flawed designer—weaken it. Darwin's theory of evolution offers a naturalistic explanation for apparent design, making the argument less compelling. Overall, while the argument has some persuasive power, it faces significant challenges.
Active Recall Memory Test
Test your memory before revealing the key facts
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions students ask about this topic
Before You Start
Prior knowledge that will help with this topic
- •Basic understanding of logic and argument structure (premises, conclusions, validity, soundness).
- •Familiarity with the concept of God in Western philosophy (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence).
- •Some knowledge of the problem of evil and theodicies is helpful before studying the arguments for God's existence.
Key Terminology
Essential terms to know
- Omnipotence
- Omniscience
- Omnibenevolence
- Problem of evil
- Free will defence
- Verificationism
- Falsificationism
- Language games
- Analogical language
- Ontological argument
- Cosmological argument
- Teleological argument
- Anselm
- Aquinas
- Paley
Ready to test yourself?
Practice questions tailored to this topic