AQA A-LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES
PAPER 1: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
AND ETHICS – COMPLETE PRACTICE
EXAMINATION 2026-2027 Questions
with Answers and Detailed Rationales
Covering the Full Specification
Ontological Argument
Q1. What type of argument is the ontological argument? (1 mark)
Answer: A priori argument – it does not depend on sense experience but
on reason alone.
Rationale: The ontological argument is deductive and a priori, meaning it
proceeds from the definition of God without requiring empirical
observation.
Q2. How does Anselm define God in his ontological argument? (2 marks)
Answer: Anselm defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be
conceived" (aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari potest).
,Rationale: This definition is central to Anselm's argument – if God is the
greatest conceivable being, then existence in reality is greater than
existence only in the mind.
Q3. Explain Anselm's ontological argument in the Proslogion. (5 marks)
Answer: Anselm argues that even the fool who says "there is no God"
understands the definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can
be conceived." This definition exists in the understanding. If God exists only
in the understanding, then a greater being could be conceived – one that
exists in reality as well. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Rationale: The argument moves from the definition of God in the mind to
the necessary conclusion that God must exist in reality, as existence in
reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
Q4. What is Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's ontological argument? (4 marks)
Answer: Gaunilo uses the "perfect island" parody – one can conceive of a
perfect island than which nothing greater can be conceived, but this does
not mean such an island actually exists. This shows that logic alone cannot
prove existence.
Rationale: Gaunilo demonstrates that Anselm's reasoning would prove the
existence of any perfect thing, which is absurd. Therefore, the argument
must be flawed.
,Q5. How does Kant criticise the ontological argument? (4 marks)
Answer: Kant argues that existence is not a predicate (a property that adds
to the concept of a thing). Adding "exists" to a concept does not make it
greater – existence does not add to the essence of a thing. Therefore, the
ontological argument fails.
Rationale: Kant shows that existence is not a property that can be included
in a definition – you cannot define something into existence.
Q6. What is the difference between Anselm's first and second versions of
the ontological argument? (3 marks)
Answer: Anselm's first version argues from the definition of God in the
understanding to existence in reality. His second version (in response to
Gaunilo) argues that God is a necessary being – one that cannot be
conceived not to exist – and therefore must exist.
Rationale: The second version introduces the concept of necessary
existence to strengthen the argument against the charge that it proves the
existence of any perfect thing.
Q7. 'Anselm's ontological argument successfully proves God's existence.'
Evaluate this claim. (15 marks)
, Answer: AO1 Knowledge: Anselm defines God as "that than which
nothing greater can be conceived" and argues that existence in reality is
greater than existence in the mind, so God must exist. Gaunilo objects with
the perfect island, showing the logic would prove anything. Kant argues
existence is not a predicate. Descartes later defended the argument,
claiming God's existence is part of His essence, like three angles belong to a
triangle.
AO2 Evaluation: The argument has strengths – it is elegant and a priori,
appealing to reason alone. However, Gaunilo's parody is powerful – the
logic would seem to prove any perfect entity. Kant's objection is perhaps
decisive – existence does not add to a concept. Furthermore, Anselm's
argument assumes existence is a perfection, which is questionable. The
argument may be valuable for faith (Anselm described it as a prayer) but
fails as a logical proof. Ultimately, the ontological argument is
philosophically interesting but does not constitute a successful proof.
Rationale: A balanced evaluation acknowledging both strengths and
weaknesses, with reference to key scholars, is required for top marks.
Q8. What is Descartes' version of the ontological argument? (3 marks)
Answer: Descartes argues that God's existence is part of His essence – just
as a triangle's essence includes having three angles, God's essence includes
existence. A supremely perfect being must possess existence.
Rationale: Descartes builds on Anselm but uses the analogy of geometric
essences to argue that existence is inseparable from God's nature.
PAPER 1: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
AND ETHICS – COMPLETE PRACTICE
EXAMINATION 2026-2027 Questions
with Answers and Detailed Rationales
Covering the Full Specification
Ontological Argument
Q1. What type of argument is the ontological argument? (1 mark)
Answer: A priori argument – it does not depend on sense experience but
on reason alone.
Rationale: The ontological argument is deductive and a priori, meaning it
proceeds from the definition of God without requiring empirical
observation.
Q2. How does Anselm define God in his ontological argument? (2 marks)
Answer: Anselm defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be
conceived" (aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari potest).
,Rationale: This definition is central to Anselm's argument – if God is the
greatest conceivable being, then existence in reality is greater than
existence only in the mind.
Q3. Explain Anselm's ontological argument in the Proslogion. (5 marks)
Answer: Anselm argues that even the fool who says "there is no God"
understands the definition of God as "that than which nothing greater can
be conceived." This definition exists in the understanding. If God exists only
in the understanding, then a greater being could be conceived – one that
exists in reality as well. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Rationale: The argument moves from the definition of God in the mind to
the necessary conclusion that God must exist in reality, as existence in
reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
Q4. What is Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's ontological argument? (4 marks)
Answer: Gaunilo uses the "perfect island" parody – one can conceive of a
perfect island than which nothing greater can be conceived, but this does
not mean such an island actually exists. This shows that logic alone cannot
prove existence.
Rationale: Gaunilo demonstrates that Anselm's reasoning would prove the
existence of any perfect thing, which is absurd. Therefore, the argument
must be flawed.
,Q5. How does Kant criticise the ontological argument? (4 marks)
Answer: Kant argues that existence is not a predicate (a property that adds
to the concept of a thing). Adding "exists" to a concept does not make it
greater – existence does not add to the essence of a thing. Therefore, the
ontological argument fails.
Rationale: Kant shows that existence is not a property that can be included
in a definition – you cannot define something into existence.
Q6. What is the difference between Anselm's first and second versions of
the ontological argument? (3 marks)
Answer: Anselm's first version argues from the definition of God in the
understanding to existence in reality. His second version (in response to
Gaunilo) argues that God is a necessary being – one that cannot be
conceived not to exist – and therefore must exist.
Rationale: The second version introduces the concept of necessary
existence to strengthen the argument against the charge that it proves the
existence of any perfect thing.
Q7. 'Anselm's ontological argument successfully proves God's existence.'
Evaluate this claim. (15 marks)
, Answer: AO1 Knowledge: Anselm defines God as "that than which
nothing greater can be conceived" and argues that existence in reality is
greater than existence in the mind, so God must exist. Gaunilo objects with
the perfect island, showing the logic would prove anything. Kant argues
existence is not a predicate. Descartes later defended the argument,
claiming God's existence is part of His essence, like three angles belong to a
triangle.
AO2 Evaluation: The argument has strengths – it is elegant and a priori,
appealing to reason alone. However, Gaunilo's parody is powerful – the
logic would seem to prove any perfect entity. Kant's objection is perhaps
decisive – existence does not add to a concept. Furthermore, Anselm's
argument assumes existence is a perfection, which is questionable. The
argument may be valuable for faith (Anselm described it as a prayer) but
fails as a logical proof. Ultimately, the ontological argument is
philosophically interesting but does not constitute a successful proof.
Rationale: A balanced evaluation acknowledging both strengths and
weaknesses, with reference to key scholars, is required for top marks.
Q8. What is Descartes' version of the ontological argument? (3 marks)
Answer: Descartes argues that God's existence is part of His essence – just
as a triangle's essence includes having three angles, God's essence includes
existence. A supremely perfect being must possess existence.
Rationale: Descartes builds on Anselm but uses the analogy of geometric
essences to argue that existence is inseparable from God's nature.
