Philosophy of religion: Arguments for the existence of God — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Philosophy of religion: Arguments for the existence of God explained
Philosophy of religion: Arguments for the existence of God covers 7 specification points, including Presentation: Paley’s analogical argument.
Read the full explanation
and Criticisms: Hume.. Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Presentation: Paley’s analogical argument.
Paley argues from analogy: as a watch found on a heath implies a watchmaker, so the ordered world implies a designer. The argument moves from observed design (means to ends, adaptation of parts) to the conclusion that a designing intelligence exists. Teach learners to identify the analogy's structure: the watch and the world share complexity and apparent purpose; the inference is that both require an intelligent maker. The strength of the analogy depends on how closely the world resembles a designed artefact, and on whether the inference is probabilistic rather than deductive. A good answer distinguishes the analogy itself from the design inference it supports, and explains why Paley thinks the resemblance is close enough to justify the conclusion.
Criticisms: Hume.
Hume criticises design arguments by questioning the inference from the world's order to a single intelligent designer. He notes that we have experience only of minds producing order in human artefacts, so extending this to the whole universe is a weak analogy. He also raises the problem of imperfect and apparently wasteful features, suggesting the world is not obviously the product of a perfect designer. Hume points out that the analogy cannot establish the attributes of the designer, such as unity or moral perfection, and that alternative explanations of order are conceivable. Learners should identify these criticisms and explain how each weakens Paley's inference, distinguishing the analogy critique from the critique of the designer's nature.
Presentation: Anselm’s a priori argument.
Anselm argues a priori: the conclusion follows from the meaning of the concept of God, not from observation of the world. In the Proslogion he defines God as 'that than which no greater can be conceived'. Even a person who denies God's existence, he claims, understands this concept, so it exists in the understanding. If it existed only in the understanding, a greater being could be conceived that also exists in reality; that would contradict the definition. Therefore God exists in reality. Anselm adds that God cannot be conceived not to exist, since a necessary being is greater than a contingent one. Learn the steps in order and be ready to identify which move a given option describes.
Criticisms: Gaunilo and Kant.
Gaunilo's reply uses a parody: by Anselm's reasoning one could prove the existence of a perfect island, since a perfect island existing in reality would be greater than one existing only in the understanding. Gaunilo argues the method proves too much and cannot legitimately move from a concept to real existence. Anselm answered that the argument applies only to a being than which no greater can be conceived, which admits no comparison with contingent things such as islands. Kant's criticism is different: existence is not a real predicate that adds a property to a concept. A hundred real thalers contain no more concept than a hundred possible ones; the difference lies in the object, not the concept. So no analysis of the concept of God can establish that God exists. Learn to separate the two criticisms and their targets.
Presentation: Aquinas' Way 3. The argument from contingency and necessity.
Aquinas' Third Way reasons from contingency to necessity. Contingent beings can exist and can fail to exist; observation shows such things come to be and perish, so at some time they may not be. If everything were contingent, at some time nothing would exist, and nothing could then begin to exist, which contradicts present existence. So not all beings are contingent: some being must be necessary. A necessary being either has its necessity caused by another or not. An infinite chain of caused necessity explains nothing, so a being whose necessity is not caused by another must exist, and this all call God. The MCQ tests whether you can trace each step and identify what the conclusion claims.
Criticisms: Hume and Russell.
Hume and Russell challenge arguments that move from the world to a necessary being. Hume questions whether we can reason from observed causes to a necessary existence, treating necessity as a feature of our ideas rather than something we observe in things, and he presses the point that whatever we conceive as existing we can conceive as not existing. Russell argues that the universe is simply there and needs no explanation beyond itself, and that 'necessary' is misapplied to the world; the existence of the world is a brute fact. The MCQ tests whether you can match each critic to the objection and distinguish their targets.
Students should study the basis of each argument in observation or in thought, the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, their status as ‘proofs’, their value for religious faith and the relationship between reason and faith.
This topic asks you to examine the arguments for God's existence from two starting points. Some arguments begin in observation: they reason from features of the experienced world, such as apparent order or apparent purpose, towards a cause. Others begin in thought: they reason from the mere concept of a necessary or greatest being, without needing to inspect the world. For each argument, identify its premises, the inference to its conclusion, and whether the conclusion is offered as deductive proof or as probabilistic support. Weigh strengths and weaknesses, then judge how far the argument functions as a 'proof', how far it supports religious faith, and how reason relates to faith.
Your focus
- Describe the structure of Paley's watch analogy.
- Explain how the analogy supports belief in a designer.
- Distinguish analogical inference from deductive proof.
Show all 21 objectives
- Explain Hume's objections to the design argument.
- Assess how far Hume's criticisms undermine Paley's analogy.
- Distinguish critiques of the analogy from critiques of the designer's nature.
- Outline the stages of Anselm's a priori argument in order.
- Explain why Anselm treats the argument as independent of experience.
- Distinguish existence in the understanding from existence in reality within the argument.
- Explain Gaunilo's perfect island objection to Anselm's argument.
- Explain Kant's claim that existence is not a real predicate.
- Distinguish the two criticisms by author and by target.
- Outline the steps of Aquinas' Third Way from contingency to a necessary being.
- Explain why Aquinas rejects an infinite regress of caused necessity.
- Identify the conclusion the argument reaches and what it claims about God.
- State Hume's objection to inferring a necessary being from the world.
- Explain Russell's claim that the universe is a brute fact.
- Distinguish the two criticisms and identify which argument each targets.
- Distinguish arguments that begin in observation from those that begin in thought.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an argument for God's existence.
- Assess how far an argument functions as proof and what it offers religious faith.
Philosophy of religion: Arguments for the existence of God flashcards
Card 1 of 9
Argument from analogy
Philosophy of religion: Arguments for the existence of God exam tips
Marking Points
- Identifies the watch and the world as the two items compared in Paley's analogy.
- Explains that the analogy infers an intelligent designer from apparent order and purpose.
- Distinguishes the analogy from a deductive proof, treating it as a probabilistic inference.
- States that the strength of the analogy depends on the closeness of resemblance between artefact and world.
- Explains that Hume questions the strength of the analogy between human artefacts and the universe.
- States that Hume argues the inference cannot establish a single, perfect designer.
- Identifies Hume's point that apparent imperfection and waste weaken the design conclusion.
- Explains that Hume treats the design argument as a weak, non-demonstrative inference.
- Identifies that Anselm's argument is a priori because it reasons from the concept of God rather than from empirical evidence.
- States the definition of God as that than which no greater can be conceived.
- Explains that the concept exists in the understanding even for the fool who denies God in his heart.
- Explains that a being existing in reality is greater than one existing only in the understanding.
- Concludes that God must exist in reality to satisfy the definition without contradiction.
- Recognises the further claim that God's existence is necessary, so God cannot be conceived not to exist.
- Explains Gaunilo's perfect island parody as showing that the reasoning would prove the existence of anything conceived as perfect.
- States that Gaunilo challenges the move from existence in the understanding to existence in reality.
- Explains Kant's claim that existence is not a real predicate adding to a concept.
- Uses Kant's example of real and possible thalers to show that existence adds nothing to the concept's content.
- Distinguishes Gaunilo's parody from Kant's logical point about predication.
- Recognises that Anselm's reply restricts the argument to a being than which no greater can be conceived.
- Identifies contingency as the capacity to exist and not exist, shown by things that come to be and perish.
- Explains that if all beings were contingent, at some time nothing would exist, so nothing could begin to exist, contradicting present existence.
- States that a necessary being cannot not exist and that Aquinas denies an infinite regress of caused necessity.
- Distinguishes the conclusion, a being necessary in itself and not caused by another, from the weaker claim that some being is merely necessary.
- Recognises that the argument moves from observed contingency to a necessary ground rather than from design or motion.
- Attributes to Hume the objection that necessity is not observed in the world but is a relation among ideas.
- Explains Hume's point that whatever we can conceive as existing we can conceive as not existing, so no being is demonstrably necessary.
- Attributes to Russell the claim that the universe is a brute fact requiring no further explanation.
- Distinguishes Russell's rejection of applying 'necessary' to the world from Hume's analysis of causation and necessity.
- Identifies whether a given argument starts from observation of the world or from a concept in thought, and explains why that starting point matters.
- Sets out the premises and the inference of an argument before assessing it, so the evaluation targets the actual reasoning.
- Assesses strengths and weaknesses of an argument by testing its premises and the validity of its inference.
- Judges whether an argument succeeds as a deductive proof or offers only probabilistic support for its conclusion.
- Evaluates the value of an argument for religious faith, distinguishing rational conviction from trust and commitment.
- Explains a position on the relationship between reason and faith, such as reason supporting faith or reason and faith operating in different domains.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Name both sides of the analogy explicitly before evaluating it.
- 💡Explain the inference step from order to designer in your own words.
- 💡Signal whether you are describing or assessing the analogy so the examiner can follow your reasoning.
- 💡Separate Hume's critique of the analogy from his critique of the designer's attributes.
- 💡Use the phrase 'weak analogy' precisely and explain what makes it weak.
- 💡Link each criticism to a specific step in Paley's argument.
- 💡Learn the argument as a numbered sequence so you can match an option to the correct stage.
- 💡Watch for distractors that swap a priori for a posteriori reasoning.
- 💡Check whether an option preserves the exact comparative wording of the definition.
- 💡Ask which premise a given option is testing before choosing.
- 💡Label each criticism with its author before evaluating an option.
- 💡Recall the thalers example as the anchor for Kant's point.
- 💡Check whether an option describes the parody or the predication objection, not a blend.
- 💡Note Anselm's reply to Gaunilo so you can reject options that ignore it.
- 💡Learn the argument as a numbered chain so you can spot which step an option misstates.
- 💡Check whether an option confuses 'necessary' with 'self-caused' or 'uncaused'; Aquinas speaks of necessity not caused by another.
- 💡When an option adds claims about design or purpose, reject it as belonging to a different Way.
- 💡Learn one core sentence for each critic and check which thinker an option names.
- 💡Watch for options that swap the target, for example attacking design when the criticism concerns contingency.
- 💡Reject options that overstate the criticism as a disproof of God's existence.
- 💡Name the starting point of each argument explicitly before evaluating it.
- 💡Separate your account of an argument from your evaluation of it, using clear signposting.
- 💡When discussing 'proof', state what standard of proof you are applying and why.
- 💡Link your conclusion on reason and faith back to the arguments you have assessed.
Common Mistakes
- Treats the analogy as a strict deductive proof; recognise it as an inference from resemblance.
- Confuses the watch with the designer rather than the designed object; keep the compared items distinct.
- Ignores the role of apparent purpose; explain how means-to-ends order supports the inference.
- Assumes Hume denies all order in the world; he questions the inference to a designer, not the observation of order.
- Attributes a deductive refutation to Hume; recognise his critique as probabilistic and analogical.
- Overlooks the problem of evil and imperfection; connect it to the limits of the design inference.
- Treats the argument as a posteriori and grounds it in design or experience; correct this by stressing that it moves from the concept alone.
- Confuses Anselm's definition with a claim that God is the greatest of all existing things; correct this by keeping the phrase 'than which no greater can be conceived'.
- Assumes the argument depends on the fool actually believing in God; correct this by noting that understanding the concept is enough.
- Omits the step comparing existence in the understanding with existence in reality; correct this by supplying that comparison explicitly.
- Treats Gaunilo as arguing that islands are greater than God; correct this by explaining the parody targets the form of the argument, not the ranking of beings.
- Attributes the real predicate criticism to Gaunilo; correct this by assigning it to Kant.
- Claims Kant denies that God exists; correct this by noting he denies that existence can be derived from the concept.
- Merges the two criticisms into one objection; correct this by stating each separately with its own target.
- Treats contingency as simply meaning 'dependent on something else'; keep the core sense of existing but being able to fail to exist.
- Reads the conclusion as proving a necessary being is the God of classical theism in full detail; note that Aquinas identifies this necessary being with God but the argument establishes necessity, not all divine attributes.
- Confuses Way 3 with the argument from design or the cosmological argument from motion; keep the contingency-to-necessity structure distinct.
- Attributes the brute-fact objection to Hume; assign it to Russell and keep Hume's point about conceivability and observed necessity.
- Treats the criticisms as rejecting belief in God outright; they target the inference from contingency to a necessary being, not every theistic claim.
- Mixes the two critics so one option carries both objections; match each objection to its named thinker.
- Treats every argument as a deductive proof; distinguish deductive claims from inductive or probabilistic ones.
- Describes an argument's conclusion without stating its premises; set out the premises so the evaluation has something to test.
- Assumes all arguments begin in observation; recognise that some begin from thought alone.
- Offers strengths and weaknesses as a list without judging which carries more weight; reach a reasoned judgement.