Philosophy A Level Paper 2 Notes/
Latest Update
He would be limited and therefore not be supremely great, meaning He would not be
God. Therefore if God exists, He must exist necessarily
Since God cannot come into existence, if God does not exist then it is impossible for
God to exist. Therefore either God exists and His existence is necessary or God does
not exist and His existence is impossible.
For God's existence to be impossible, the concept of God must be in some way self-
contradictory. The concept of God is not self-contradictory so God's existence cannot be
impossible and must therefore be necessary.
Since God exists necessarily, God exists
Issues with Malcolm's ontological argument (3+1) - CORRECT ANSWERS -The
concept of God can be seen as self-contradictory meaning God's existence must be
impossible. Problems include the Problem of the Stone, the Euthyphro Dilemma, The
Problem of Evil
Does God's necessary existence really mean he cannot cease to exist? Surely as an
omnipotent being God should be able to bring about the end of His own existence (as
even humans can do)?
Response: God can only do what is logically possible by virtue of his omnipotence.
Ending the existence of a necessary being is logically impossible so is not a thing that
can be done, so there is no issue with God not being able to do it
If God really were a necessarily existing being, God not existing would be
inconceivable. Yet in Malcolm's own argument Malcolm conceives of God not existing; if
"God exists" were a necessary truth like "2+2=4" then it would be equally inconceivable
to conceive of God not existing as for 2 and 2 to equal 5. It is clearly not as
demonstrated by Malcolm; therefore "God exists" is not a necessary truth
Hume's response to a priori arguments for existence - CORRECT ANSWERS -
Something can only be proven a priori if its opposite is logically contradictory meaning it
must be inconceivable. It is possible to conceive of anything that exists not existing and
therefore the existence of anything, including God, cannot be proven a priori.
Theists reply that God's non-existence is inconceivable as part of the concept of God is
existence. Hume argues that even if this is the case, this a priori knowledge is merely a
relation of ideas that is conceptually true based on the meanings of the words but is
completely independent of the actual state of the world.
Ayer's response to a priori arguments for existence - CORRECT ANSWERS -According
to verificationism, meaningful sentences are either analytic sentences knowable a priori
or synthetic sentences verifiable a posteriori
Analytic sentences like "God exists" can be true because of the meanings of the
component words but cannot tell us about the state of the world. Instead analytic
sentences are merely an analysis of the meanings of the component words meaning
,that while they are true, their truth is not significant and does not reflect a state of affairs
in the real world.
Therefore even if the sentence "God exists" is analytically true, this has nothing to do
with the real world and has no bearing on whether God exists
Response: the verification principle is self defeating. By its own standards of
meaningfulness the claim "meaningful sentences are either analytic sentences
knowable a priori or synthetic sentences verifiable a posteriori" is meaningless; it is
neither an analytic truth nor a claim that can be practically verified a posteriori
The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume) - CORRECT ANSWERS -
Man-made objects such as watches have a cause, that being an intelligent human
designer, which is made apparent by various properties including a deliberate purpose
which it fulfils
In the same way, all of nature, if taken as one thing, can be seen to exhibit these same
properties of purpose, with the interworking individual components being natural things
such as plants, animals, stars etc.
Therefore, since like effects have like causes, it follows that in the same way as the
cause of man-made objects was an intelligent designer, the cause of nature, which is
relevantly similar to these objects, must also be an intelligent designer
This designer is the Author of Nature
Since the universe is much larger and more complex than any man-made object, the
Author of Nature must be possessed of greater faculties of wisdom, intelligence etc.
than any human designer although it would share similarities such as being personal
and intelligent
It is most plausible that this Author of Nature is God and therefore God exists
William Paley's argument from spatial order/purpose: - CORRECT ANSWERS -Man-
made objects such as watches display spatial order meaning that they are complex
(have parts), harmonious (parts work together), regular (follow rules) and purposeful
(has a purpose)
This spatial order makes it obvious that such objects had an intelligent designer who
created the objects with a specific purpose in mind and this would be apparent even to
a person who came across, for example, a watch but did not know the purpose of a
watch, or if they came across a watch that had broken
The universe also exhibits spatial order as it is complex, harmonious and regular and
this suggests a purpose. Therefore it too must have an intelligent designer
Since the universe is infinite and extremely complex, its designer must be greatly
superior to the human designer of the finite watch
It is most plausible that this designer is God and therefore God exists
Richard Swinburne's argument from temporal order/regularity: - CORRECT ANSWERS
-For human beings to evolve, develop (i.e. society, technology etc) and be free moral
agents capable of being held responsible for their actions, the universe must be
conditioned by temporal regularities
, For these temporal regularities (i.e. fundamental laws of nature) to be exactly the way
they are in order to allow humans to evolve, develop and become free moral agents by
pure chance is extraordinarily unlikely
According to Christian theology in the Last Judgement the living and the dead will be
judged according to their actions in life and sent to either Heaven or Hell. This Last
Judgement requires that humans are free moral agents responsible for their actions
Anselm's ontological argument: - CORRECT ANSWERS -God is supremely great and
perfect by definition and this is the concept of God that exists in the minds of both
theists and atheists. Since God is supremely great and it is objectively greater to exist in
existence as well as in the mind than just in the mind, he must necessarily exist by
definition. If an atheist denies this he is not disputing the existence of the same God
believed in by theists but if he agrees then he must be agreeing to the existence of God.
This makes atheism self-contradictory.
The issue with Anselm's ontological argument that atheists do not have to accept this
definition of God - CORRECT ANSWERS -Atheists do not have to accept this definition
of God
However It is not unreasonable to define God as the greatest conceivable being, as
Anselm does. If we were to conceive of a greater being, possessed of more perfections
than God, then we ought to call that being God instead; the definition of God is that of
the greatest conceivable being
The issue with Anselm's ontological argument that atheists can accept Anseelm's
definition of God but maintain their position - CORRECT ANSWERS -Athiests can
accept Anselm's definition of God and hold the same concept without having God
existing in their minds. In fact anything claiming anything is "existing in the mind" except
for mental states is arguably a nonsensical claim
However this can be seen more as an issue with Anselm's medieval way of expression
than with his argument. His argument can just as effectively be expressed as saying "it
is greater to exist than not to exist" rather than "it is greater to exist in reality as well as
in the mind"
Guanilo's Perfect Island objection to Anselm's ontological argument - CORRECT
ANSWERS -Guanilo states that the ontological argument can be used by analogy to
prove the existence of various things. In his example he uses the idea of a "perfect
island" which in being the greatest conceivable island must possess the perfection of
existence. Guanilo uses this example to demonstrate the absurdity of Anselm's
ontological argument.
Anelm's reply: islands and other physical things have no intrinsic maximum meaning
they cannot be conceivably perfect. The concept of God is unimprovable however.
Furthermore the perfection of physical objections is subjective while God's perfection is
objective
Counter-replies:
Islands have no objective perfection or intrinsic maximum only because we have to
specify criteria for their perfection and these criteria both can always have their
satisfaction improved upon and will always be subject to disagreement. Anselm is only
Latest Update
He would be limited and therefore not be supremely great, meaning He would not be
God. Therefore if God exists, He must exist necessarily
Since God cannot come into existence, if God does not exist then it is impossible for
God to exist. Therefore either God exists and His existence is necessary or God does
not exist and His existence is impossible.
For God's existence to be impossible, the concept of God must be in some way self-
contradictory. The concept of God is not self-contradictory so God's existence cannot be
impossible and must therefore be necessary.
Since God exists necessarily, God exists
Issues with Malcolm's ontological argument (3+1) - CORRECT ANSWERS -The
concept of God can be seen as self-contradictory meaning God's existence must be
impossible. Problems include the Problem of the Stone, the Euthyphro Dilemma, The
Problem of Evil
Does God's necessary existence really mean he cannot cease to exist? Surely as an
omnipotent being God should be able to bring about the end of His own existence (as
even humans can do)?
Response: God can only do what is logically possible by virtue of his omnipotence.
Ending the existence of a necessary being is logically impossible so is not a thing that
can be done, so there is no issue with God not being able to do it
If God really were a necessarily existing being, God not existing would be
inconceivable. Yet in Malcolm's own argument Malcolm conceives of God not existing; if
"God exists" were a necessary truth like "2+2=4" then it would be equally inconceivable
to conceive of God not existing as for 2 and 2 to equal 5. It is clearly not as
demonstrated by Malcolm; therefore "God exists" is not a necessary truth
Hume's response to a priori arguments for existence - CORRECT ANSWERS -
Something can only be proven a priori if its opposite is logically contradictory meaning it
must be inconceivable. It is possible to conceive of anything that exists not existing and
therefore the existence of anything, including God, cannot be proven a priori.
Theists reply that God's non-existence is inconceivable as part of the concept of God is
existence. Hume argues that even if this is the case, this a priori knowledge is merely a
relation of ideas that is conceptually true based on the meanings of the words but is
completely independent of the actual state of the world.
Ayer's response to a priori arguments for existence - CORRECT ANSWERS -According
to verificationism, meaningful sentences are either analytic sentences knowable a priori
or synthetic sentences verifiable a posteriori
Analytic sentences like "God exists" can be true because of the meanings of the
component words but cannot tell us about the state of the world. Instead analytic
sentences are merely an analysis of the meanings of the component words meaning
,that while they are true, their truth is not significant and does not reflect a state of affairs
in the real world.
Therefore even if the sentence "God exists" is analytically true, this has nothing to do
with the real world and has no bearing on whether God exists
Response: the verification principle is self defeating. By its own standards of
meaningfulness the claim "meaningful sentences are either analytic sentences
knowable a priori or synthetic sentences verifiable a posteriori" is meaningless; it is
neither an analytic truth nor a claim that can be practically verified a posteriori
The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume) - CORRECT ANSWERS -
Man-made objects such as watches have a cause, that being an intelligent human
designer, which is made apparent by various properties including a deliberate purpose
which it fulfils
In the same way, all of nature, if taken as one thing, can be seen to exhibit these same
properties of purpose, with the interworking individual components being natural things
such as plants, animals, stars etc.
Therefore, since like effects have like causes, it follows that in the same way as the
cause of man-made objects was an intelligent designer, the cause of nature, which is
relevantly similar to these objects, must also be an intelligent designer
This designer is the Author of Nature
Since the universe is much larger and more complex than any man-made object, the
Author of Nature must be possessed of greater faculties of wisdom, intelligence etc.
than any human designer although it would share similarities such as being personal
and intelligent
It is most plausible that this Author of Nature is God and therefore God exists
William Paley's argument from spatial order/purpose: - CORRECT ANSWERS -Man-
made objects such as watches display spatial order meaning that they are complex
(have parts), harmonious (parts work together), regular (follow rules) and purposeful
(has a purpose)
This spatial order makes it obvious that such objects had an intelligent designer who
created the objects with a specific purpose in mind and this would be apparent even to
a person who came across, for example, a watch but did not know the purpose of a
watch, or if they came across a watch that had broken
The universe also exhibits spatial order as it is complex, harmonious and regular and
this suggests a purpose. Therefore it too must have an intelligent designer
Since the universe is infinite and extremely complex, its designer must be greatly
superior to the human designer of the finite watch
It is most plausible that this designer is God and therefore God exists
Richard Swinburne's argument from temporal order/regularity: - CORRECT ANSWERS
-For human beings to evolve, develop (i.e. society, technology etc) and be free moral
agents capable of being held responsible for their actions, the universe must be
conditioned by temporal regularities
, For these temporal regularities (i.e. fundamental laws of nature) to be exactly the way
they are in order to allow humans to evolve, develop and become free moral agents by
pure chance is extraordinarily unlikely
According to Christian theology in the Last Judgement the living and the dead will be
judged according to their actions in life and sent to either Heaven or Hell. This Last
Judgement requires that humans are free moral agents responsible for their actions
Anselm's ontological argument: - CORRECT ANSWERS -God is supremely great and
perfect by definition and this is the concept of God that exists in the minds of both
theists and atheists. Since God is supremely great and it is objectively greater to exist in
existence as well as in the mind than just in the mind, he must necessarily exist by
definition. If an atheist denies this he is not disputing the existence of the same God
believed in by theists but if he agrees then he must be agreeing to the existence of God.
This makes atheism self-contradictory.
The issue with Anselm's ontological argument that atheists do not have to accept this
definition of God - CORRECT ANSWERS -Atheists do not have to accept this definition
of God
However It is not unreasonable to define God as the greatest conceivable being, as
Anselm does. If we were to conceive of a greater being, possessed of more perfections
than God, then we ought to call that being God instead; the definition of God is that of
the greatest conceivable being
The issue with Anselm's ontological argument that atheists can accept Anseelm's
definition of God but maintain their position - CORRECT ANSWERS -Athiests can
accept Anselm's definition of God and hold the same concept without having God
existing in their minds. In fact anything claiming anything is "existing in the mind" except
for mental states is arguably a nonsensical claim
However this can be seen more as an issue with Anselm's medieval way of expression
than with his argument. His argument can just as effectively be expressed as saying "it
is greater to exist than not to exist" rather than "it is greater to exist in reality as well as
in the mind"
Guanilo's Perfect Island objection to Anselm's ontological argument - CORRECT
ANSWERS -Guanilo states that the ontological argument can be used by analogy to
prove the existence of various things. In his example he uses the idea of a "perfect
island" which in being the greatest conceivable island must possess the perfection of
existence. Guanilo uses this example to demonstrate the absurdity of Anselm's
ontological argument.
Anelm's reply: islands and other physical things have no intrinsic maximum meaning
they cannot be conceivably perfect. The concept of God is unimprovable however.
Furthermore the perfection of physical objections is subjective while God's perfection is
objective
Counter-replies:
Islands have no objective perfection or intrinsic maximum only because we have to
specify criteria for their perfection and these criteria both can always have their
satisfaction improved upon and will always be subject to disagreement. Anselm is only
