The existence of God: theism, atheism and agnosticism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments that frames the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments.

What this key area is asking

The mandatory area opens with the central question of the philosophy of religion: does God exist, and can it be argued either way? You must understand the positions, theism, atheism and agnosticism, the idea of a burden of proof, and the crucial distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments that organises the three classical arguments you study: the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments. This overview frames the area; the next dot points take each argument in detail.

Theism, atheism and agnosticism

The three positions are examined precisely, because much of the debate turns on what each is claiming. Atheism makes a denial; agnosticism withholds a verdict. A recurring dispute is whether atheism is a positive claim (God does not exist) or merely the absence of theistic belief, which bears directly on the burden of proof.

The burden of proof

The burden of proof is why the theistic arguments exist: they are attempts to discharge the burden of the claim that God exists. Whether they succeed, and whether the atheist has an equal burden, is a live evaluative question the essays reward you for engaging.

A priori and a posteriori arguments

This distinction is the organising idea of the area. It sorts the arguments by the kind of evidence they rest on and by the objections they face: a posteriori arguments are vulnerable to rival empirical explanations of the same facts, while the a priori ontological argument is attacked on logic and on whether existence can be treated as a property a thing can have.

How the arguments fit together

The three arguments are studied as the classical attempts to argue for God, each with major proponents and critics. The cosmological argument moves from the existence and causation of the universe to a first cause; the teleological (design) argument moves from order and purpose to a designer; the ontological argument moves from the concept of a greatest possible being to its existence. At Advanced Higher you do not merely recount them: you analyse how each works and evaluate whether it succeeds against its objections, which is where the marks lie.

Worked example

Try this

Q1. What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? [2 marks]

• Cue. Atheism denies that God exists; agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable and suspends judgement.

Q2. Which of the three classical arguments is a priori, and what does that mean? [2 marks]

• Cue. The ontological argument; an a priori argument reasons from concepts and definitions alone, independent of experience, claiming God's existence follows from the idea of God.