How do I revise Metaphysics of God for AQA Education A-Level?

Use precise philosophical terminology (e.g., 'inconsistent triad', 'gratuitous evil', 'theodicy vs. defence') to demonstrate analytical depth and meet AQA assessment objectives.

What exam tips are there for Metaphysics of God? (2)

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.

What exam tips are there for Metaphysics of God? (3)

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.

What mistakes should I avoid in Metaphysics of God?

Conflating omnipotence with the ability to do logically impossible things, rather than understanding it as the power to do all logically possible actions.

What are common errors in Metaphysics of God exams? (2)

Misrepresenting the logical problem of evil as merely an emotional objection, rather than a deductive argument alleging contradiction in the divine attributes.

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.

Objectives

Exam Tips

Pitfalls

Key Terms

Mark Points

Subtopics in this area

Metaphysics of God

Topic Overview

The Metaphysics of God module in AQA A-Level Philosophy explores philosophical questions about the nature and existence of God. It examines key attributes traditionally ascribed to God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and considers whether these attributes are coherent and compatible. The topic also delves into arguments for and against God's existence, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, as well as the problem of evil. Understanding these debates is crucial for developing critical thinking skills and engaging with foundational issues in Western philosophy.

This topic matters because it addresses fundamental questions about reality, meaning, and morality. It challenges students to evaluate logical arguments, assess empirical evidence, and consider the implications of religious belief. The Metaphysics of God connects to other areas of philosophy, such as ethics (e.g., divine command theory) and epistemology (e.g., faith and reason). Mastery of this topic requires careful analysis of classic texts, such as those by Anselm, Aquinas, and Hume, and the ability to construct and critique philosophical arguments.

Within the AQA A-Level Philosophy specification, the Metaphysics of God is a compulsory component of the 'Metaphysics' section. It builds on earlier study of philosophical methods and concepts, and prepares students for more advanced discussions in philosophy of religion. Students are expected to demonstrate knowledge of key arguments, identify strengths and weaknesses, and engage with scholarly interpretations. Success in this topic demands precise use of terminology, logical reasoning, and the ability to write structured, analytical essays.

What You Need to Demonstrate

Key skills and knowledge for this topic

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.

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.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions students ask about this topic

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

Metaphysics of God

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in AQA-EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy

Moral Philosophy

Metaphysics of Mind

Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy

Metaphysics of God

Subtopics in this area

Topic Overview

What You Need to Demonstrate

Marking Points

Examiner Tips

Common Mistakes

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments?

How does the problem of evil challenge the existence of God?

What is the free will defence?

Can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?

What is the difference between the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies?

How does Kant criticise the ontological argument?

Key Terminology

Ready to test yourself?

Related Topics in AQA-EDUCATION A-Level Philosophy

Moral Philosophy

Metaphysics of Mind

Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy