Metaphysics of God — AQA A-Level Philosophy

The Metaphysics of God module in AQA A-Level Philosophy explores the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, as well as the nature of God and religious language. This topic is central to philosophy of religion and requires critical engagement with concepts like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Students will examine classical arguments such as the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments, alongside challenges from the Problem of Evil and the logical coherence of divine attributes.

Understanding this topic is crucial because it addresses fundamental questions about reality, meaning, and the limits of human reason. It also develops skills in logical analysis, evaluation of arguments, and handling abstract concepts. The module connects to broader philosophical debates about epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, making it a cornerstone of the A-Level course.

Students will need to engage with key philosophers including Anselm, Aquinas, Paley, Hume, and Mackie. The topic is assessed through essay questions that require balanced evaluation, precise use of terminology, and the ability to construct and critique arguments. Mastery of this content is essential for achieving top marks in the exam.

• →The Ontological Argument: a priori, deductive argument that God's existence is necessary (Anselm, Descartes, Kant's objection).
• →The Cosmological Argument: a posteriori, inductive argument from contingency or causation (Aquinas' Third Way, Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason).
• →The Teleological Argument: argument from design in nature (Paley's watchmaker analogy, Hume's criticisms).
• →The Problem of Evil: logical and evidential arguments against God's existence (Epicurus, Mackie's inconsistent triad, Plantinga's free will defence).
• →Divine Attributes: coherence of omnipotence (paradox of the stone), omniscience (free will conflict), and omnibenevolence (Euthyphro dilemma).

• Distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism regarding religious language
• Understanding of the verification principle and its application to religious language
• Understanding of the falsification principle and its application to religious language
• Analysis of Hick's eschatological verification
• Analysis of the University Debate (Flew, Mitchell, Hare)
• Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory of religious language

• 💡Ensure you can clearly define the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism
• 💡When discussing the University Debate, clearly distinguish between Flew's challenge, Mitchell's response, and Hare's response
• 💡Use the set texts to support your arguments, particularly when discussing the verification and falsification principles
• 💡Be prepared to evaluate whether religious language is meaningful or meaningless
• 💡Always define key terms precisely in your essays (e.g., 'necessary existence', 'contingent', 'omnipotent'). This shows the examiner you understand the concepts and sets up your analysis.
• 💡When evaluating arguments, use a clear structure: state the argument, explain its strengths, then present a counter-argument, and finally offer a balanced judgement. Avoid one-sided essays.
• 💡Use specific philosopher quotes and examples (e.g., Paley's watch, Hume's Epicurean hypothesis) to support your points. This demonstrates depth of knowledge and engagement with the text.

• Confusing the verification principle with the falsification principle
• Failing to distinguish between cognitivist and non-cognitivist interpretations of religious language
• Misunderstanding the specific nature of Hare's 'bliks'
• Failing to link the responses (Hick, Mitchell, Hare) back to the original challenges posed by Ayer or Flew
• Misconception: The Ontological Argument is obviously flawed because existence is not a predicate. Correction: Kant's objection is influential but not universally accepted; some philosophers (e.g., Plantinga) defend modal versions that avoid this criticism.
• Misconception: The Cosmological Argument proves God exists. Correction: It is an inductive argument that only suggests a necessary being; it does not identify that being as the God of classical theism, and it faces objections like the infinite regress problem.
• Misconception: The Problem of Evil disproves God. Correction: The logical problem of evil has been largely refuted by Plantinga's free will defence; the evidential problem remains a serious challenge but is probabilistic, not conclusive.