AQA A-Level Religious Studies Paper
1 (7062/1) Exam-Style Questions and
Answers with Detailed AO1/AO2
Rationales
## SECTION A: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
### Arguments for the Existence of God
#### Ontological Argument
**Q1: Examine Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of
God.** [10 marks]
**Answer:**
Anselm's ontological argument is an *a priori* argument found in the
*Proslogion*. It begins with the definition of God as "that than which
nothing greater can be conceived" . Even a fool who says "there is no
God" must understand this concept. Anselm argues that existence in
reality is greater than existence merely in the understanding. If God
,existed only in the understanding, then a greater being could be
conceived—one that exists in reality as well. Therefore, God must exist
in reality. In *Proslogion 3*, Anselm adds that God's existence is
necessary—it cannot be conceived not to exist, which is greater than
contingent existence .
**Rationale:** This tests AO1 knowledge of the ontological argument.
The key points are the definition, the distinction between existence in
the understanding versus reality, and the necessity of God's existence.
Credit should be given for clarity on Anselm's two versions of the
argument.
---
**Q2: 'Anselm's argument for the existence of God has been
disproved.' Evaluate this claim.** [15 marks]
**Answer:**
This claim has significant support. Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm,
offered the "Lost Island" objection—one could define the greatest
conceivable island and argue it must exist, which is absurd. This shows
the argument proves too much . Kant's objection is stronger: existence
is not a predicate or property that adds to a concept. A hundred thalers
in the mind and a hundred thalers in reality are identical in concept—
existence adds nothing to the definition. Therefore, Anselm's argument
fails .
,However, supporters respond that Anselm's argument is unique to
God—only God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."
Aquinas rejected the argument on different grounds, arguing we
cannot know God's essence. Descartes reformulated it, claiming
existence is as inseparable from God as three angles are from a triangle.
Plantinga's modal version suggests maximal greatness is possibly
instantiated, therefore actually instantiated.
**Conclusion:** While the argument may not be definitively
"disproved," the cumulative force of Kant's critique and the logical
problems make it highly problematic. However, it remains a powerful
piece of philosophical reasoning that reveals something about how we
conceptualise God.
**Rationale:** This tests AO2 evaluation skills. Students must consider
both sides of the debate and reach a reasoned conclusion. References
to Gaunilo, Kant, and responses from defenders strengthen the
response.
---
**Q3: Examine how Descartes' ontological argument differs from
Anselm's.** [10 marks]
**Answer:**
, Descartes presents the ontological argument in the *Meditations*.
Unlike Anselm, Descartes uses the analogy of a triangle: just as a
triangle necessarily has three angles, God necessarily has existence.
Existence is part of God's essence. Descartes argues that God is a
supremely perfect being, and existence is a perfection—therefore God
must exist. He emphasises that this is not a matter of choice but is as
clear and distinct as any mathematical truth. Unlike Anselm, Descartes
grounds the argument in his epistemology and relies on the innate idea
of God. His version is more explicitly deductive and framed within his
broader philosophical project.
**Rationale:** Tests comparative knowledge. Students should
demonstrate understanding of both philosophers and their distinct
approaches.
---
**Q4: 'The ontological argument is the weakest argument for God's
existence.' Evaluate this claim.** [15 marks]
**Answer:**
This claim has merit. Unlike cosmological or teleological arguments, the
ontological argument relies entirely on *a priori* reasoning without
empirical evidence. It seems to "define God into existence" and is
vulnerable to Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate. Critics
argue it proves nothing—Hume famously dismissed it as sophistry.
1 (7062/1) Exam-Style Questions and
Answers with Detailed AO1/AO2
Rationales
## SECTION A: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
### Arguments for the Existence of God
#### Ontological Argument
**Q1: Examine Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of
God.** [10 marks]
**Answer:**
Anselm's ontological argument is an *a priori* argument found in the
*Proslogion*. It begins with the definition of God as "that than which
nothing greater can be conceived" . Even a fool who says "there is no
God" must understand this concept. Anselm argues that existence in
reality is greater than existence merely in the understanding. If God
,existed only in the understanding, then a greater being could be
conceived—one that exists in reality as well. Therefore, God must exist
in reality. In *Proslogion 3*, Anselm adds that God's existence is
necessary—it cannot be conceived not to exist, which is greater than
contingent existence .
**Rationale:** This tests AO1 knowledge of the ontological argument.
The key points are the definition, the distinction between existence in
the understanding versus reality, and the necessity of God's existence.
Credit should be given for clarity on Anselm's two versions of the
argument.
---
**Q2: 'Anselm's argument for the existence of God has been
disproved.' Evaluate this claim.** [15 marks]
**Answer:**
This claim has significant support. Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm,
offered the "Lost Island" objection—one could define the greatest
conceivable island and argue it must exist, which is absurd. This shows
the argument proves too much . Kant's objection is stronger: existence
is not a predicate or property that adds to a concept. A hundred thalers
in the mind and a hundred thalers in reality are identical in concept—
existence adds nothing to the definition. Therefore, Anselm's argument
fails .
,However, supporters respond that Anselm's argument is unique to
God—only God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."
Aquinas rejected the argument on different grounds, arguing we
cannot know God's essence. Descartes reformulated it, claiming
existence is as inseparable from God as three angles are from a triangle.
Plantinga's modal version suggests maximal greatness is possibly
instantiated, therefore actually instantiated.
**Conclusion:** While the argument may not be definitively
"disproved," the cumulative force of Kant's critique and the logical
problems make it highly problematic. However, it remains a powerful
piece of philosophical reasoning that reveals something about how we
conceptualise God.
**Rationale:** This tests AO2 evaluation skills. Students must consider
both sides of the debate and reach a reasoned conclusion. References
to Gaunilo, Kant, and responses from defenders strengthen the
response.
---
**Q3: Examine how Descartes' ontological argument differs from
Anselm's.** [10 marks]
**Answer:**
, Descartes presents the ontological argument in the *Meditations*.
Unlike Anselm, Descartes uses the analogy of a triangle: just as a
triangle necessarily has three angles, God necessarily has existence.
Existence is part of God's essence. Descartes argues that God is a
supremely perfect being, and existence is a perfection—therefore God
must exist. He emphasises that this is not a matter of choice but is as
clear and distinct as any mathematical truth. Unlike Anselm, Descartes
grounds the argument in his epistemology and relies on the innate idea
of God. His version is more explicitly deductive and framed within his
broader philosophical project.
**Rationale:** Tests comparative knowledge. Students should
demonstrate understanding of both philosophers and their distinct
approaches.
---
**Q4: 'The ontological argument is the weakest argument for God's
existence.' Evaluate this claim.** [15 marks]
**Answer:**
This claim has merit. Unlike cosmological or teleological arguments, the
ontological argument relies entirely on *a priori* reasoning without
empirical evidence. It seems to "define God into existence" and is
vulnerable to Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate. Critics
argue it proves nothing—Hume famously dismissed it as sophistry.
