What does the AQA A-Level Philosophy metaphysics of God module cover?

The metaphysics of God (section 4.2.1) has four parts: the concept and nature of God (omniscience, omnipotence and supreme goodness and their coherence), arguments relating to God's existence (the a priori ontological argument and the a posteriori design and cosmological arguments), the problem of evil (the logical and evidential problems and theistic responses), and religious language (whether and how talk about God can be meaningful).

How is the metaphysics of God examined in AQA A-Level Philosophy?

It is examined in Paper 2 alongside the metaphysics of mind. Expect short explain questions, twelve mark evaluations of a single argument or objection, and twenty-five mark essays such as assessing the ontological argument or whether the problem of evil disproves God. The named philosophers and set arguments must be accurate.

What is the difference between the ontological, design and cosmological arguments?

The ontological argument (Anselm, Descartes) is a priori and deductive: it argues from the concept of God alone to God's existence. The design (teleological) argument (Paley, Swinburne) is a posteriori: it infers a designer from order and apparent purpose. The cosmological argument (the Kalam, Aquinas, Leibniz) is also a posteriori: it infers a first cause or necessary being from causation and contingency.

What is the difference between the logical and evidential problems of evil?

The logical problem (Mackie) claims that the existence of evil is strictly inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient and supremely good God, an inconsistent triad. The evidential problem (Rowe) grants logical consistency but argues that the amount and distribution of evil, especially apparently pointless suffering, makes the existence of such a God highly improbable.

How should I revise the metaphysics of God module?

Learn each argument's structure and its named proponents precisely, then pair every argument with its set objections (for example the ontological argument with Gaunilo's island and Kant's existence-is-not-a-predicate). For the problem of evil, distinguish the logical and evidential versions and rehearse the free will defence, soul-making theodicy and limits-of-understanding reply. Drill twenty-five mark essays with a clear conclusion.

EnglandPhilosophy

AQA A-Level Philosophy 4.2.1 Metaphysics of God: a complete overview of the concept of God, arguments for God, the problem of evil and religious language

A deep-dive AQA A-Level Philosophy guide to the metaphysics of God module (4.2.1). Covers the concept of God and its coherence, the ontological, design and cosmological arguments for God's existence, the problem of evil, and religious language, with the named philosophers and arguments examiners expect.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.822 min read4.2.1Updated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Jump to a section

What the metaphysics of God module demands
The concept of God
Arguments for God's existence
The problem of evil
Religious language
How the metaphysics of God is examined
Check your knowledge

What the metaphysics of God module demands

The metaphysics of God asks four questions: what we mean by God and whether the concept is coherent, whether God's existence can be proved, whether evil counts against God, and whether talk about God is even meaningful. The examiners test precise recall of the set arguments and their proponents, and sustained evaluation with a defended conclusion.

This guide walks through the four topics in specification order and shows how they connect, then sets out the exam patterns AQA repeats. Each topic has a matching dot-point page with practice questions; this overview ties them together.

The concept of God

The module opens with the classical attributes: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful, usually restricted to the logically possible), and supreme goodness. It then probes their coherence: the paradox of the stone for omnipotence, the Euthyphro dilemma for goodness (is something good because God commands it, or commanded because good?), and the tension between omniscience and free will (foreknowledge), answered by Boethius on God's timelessness or by restricting omniscience.

Arguments for God's existence

Three families of argument are set. The ontological argument is a priori and deductive: Anselm ("that than which nothing greater can be conceived") and Descartes (existence as a perfection of a supremely perfect being), challenged by Gaunilo's perfect island and by Hume and Kant that existence is not a predicate. The design (teleological) argument is a posteriori: Paley's watch analogy and arguments from spatial order (Swinburne), challenged by Hume on the weakness of the analogy. The cosmological argument is a posteriori too: the Kalam, Aquinas' first three Ways (motion, causation, contingency) and Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, challenged by Hume (fallacy of composition) and Kant.

The problem of evil

The third topic distinguishes moral from natural evil, then sets the logical problem (Mackie's inconsistent triad of omnipotence, supreme goodness and the existence of evil) against the evidential problem (Rowe: the amount and distribution of apparently gratuitous evil makes God improbable). The set theistic responses are the free will defence (Plantinga), the soul-making theodicy (Hick, after Irenaeus), and the appeal to the limits of human understanding.

Religious language

The final topic asks whether language about God is meaningful, distinguishing cognitivist from non-cognitivist views. The verification principle (the Vienna Circle, Ayer), backed by Hume's fork, appears to make religious claims meaningless, though it is self-refuting. Hick's eschatological verification replies that religious claims are verifiable in principle after death (the Celestial City parable). Non-cognitivist analyses treat religious language as expressing an attitude (Hare's "blik") or a Wittgensteinian form of life.

How the metaphysics of God is examined

A typical AQA profile for this module:

Short explain questions (3 and 5 marks). State the paradox of the stone, outline Anselm's argument, or explain the verification principle.
Twelve mark evaluation. Assess a single objection, such as Gaunilo's island against the ontological argument.
Twenty-five mark essays. Sustained evaluation, for example "Does the ontological argument succeed?" or "Does the problem of evil show there is no God?", requiring a clear, defended conclusion.

Check your knowledge

A mix of recall and short evaluation questions covering module 4.2.1. Attempt them under timed conditions, then check against the solutions.

Explain the paradox of the stone. (5 marks)
Outline the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. (3 marks)
Outline Anselm's ontological argument. (5 marks)
Explain Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate. (5 marks)
Outline Paley's design argument from analogy. (5 marks)
Explain the logical problem of evil as an inconsistent triad. (5 marks)
Outline the free will defence. (5 marks)
Explain the verification principle and why it challenges religious language. (5 marks)

Solutions

Q1: Can an omnipotent God create a stone too heavy to lift? If God can, there is something God cannot do (lift it); if God cannot make it, there is something God cannot do (create it). The reply restricts omnipotence to the logically possible, so the self-contradictory object is no real limit.
Q2: Either things are good because God commands them (so goodness is arbitrary), or God commands them because they are good (so there is a standard independent of God).
Q3: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived; a being existing in reality is greater than one in the understanding alone; so if God existed only in the mind we could conceive of something greater, a contradiction, so God must exist in reality.
Q4: Existence is not a real predicate: saying a thing exists adds nothing to its concept, it only posits that the concept is instantiated, so existence cannot be derived from the definition of God.
Q5: A watch's adaptation of parts to a purpose implies a designer; the universe and living things show similar adaptation of means to ends, so by analogy they have a designer, namely God.
Q6: An omnipotent, supremely good God and the existence of evil form an inconsistent triad: a good being would want to remove evil and an omnipotent being could, so such a God and evil cannot coexist.
Q7: Genuine moral good requires free will, and free agents can choose wrongly; a world of free creatures who sometimes do evil is more valuable than a world of puppets, so God has reason to permit moral evil.
Q8: A statement is meaningful only if analytic or empirically verifiable; claims about God are neither, so on this view they are pseudo-propositions that are literally meaningless (though the principle is itself self-refuting).

Sources & how we know this

AQA A-level Philosophy (7172) specification — AQA (2017)