University of WaterlooPSCI AQAAQA-71722-SMS

Question number Question Total marks 01 Explain the difference between the claims ‘God is eternal’ and ‘God is everlasting’. 3 AO1 = 3 Marks Levels of response mark scheme 3 A full and correct answer, given precisely, with little or no redundancy. 2 The substantive content of the answer is correct, but there may be some redundancy or minor imprecision. 1 Relevant, but fragmented, points. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit. Indicative content • To say that God is eternal means that God exists outside time. He is timeless or atemporal. God has no beginning/end, since these make sense only in time (something starts/stops existing in time). • To say that God is everlasting means that God exists in time. He exists throughout all time with no beginning or end. Note: no more than 1 mark for an answer which addresses only one of eternal/everlasting, as there is no attempt to explain the ‘difference.’ Note: This indicative content is not exhaustive: other creditworthy responses should be awarded marks as appropriate. MARK SCHEME – A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY – 7172/1 – SAMS 5 02 Explain the evidential problem of evil. 5 AO1 = 5 Marks Levels of response mark scheme 5 A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between precisely identified points, with no redundancy. 4 A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision/redundancy. 3 The substantive content of the explanation is present and there is an attempt at logical linking. But the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2 One or two relevant points made, but not precisely. The logic is unclear. 1 Fragmented points, with no logical structure. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit. Indicative content Students might refer to the evidential problem of evil as the ‘inductive’ problem of evil and/or the ‘a posteriori’ problem of evil. Students might make a contrast with the logical problem of evil, but there is no requirement to do so. If students do and if it helps to clarify what is meant by the evidential problem of evil, then they should receive credit. Credit should not be given for reference to the logical problem of evil alone. • The quantity (and quality and distribution) of evil/suffering, although logically consistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent (all-loving, all good) and omnipotent (all-powerful) God, counts against the existence of such a God by lowering the probability that such a God exists. • His being omnipotent (all-powerful) means that he has the capacity to reduce the amount of suffering and his being omnibenevolent (all-loving, all good) means that he has the desire to do so. • Such a God would want to and be able to (and therefore would) reduce the amount of suffering to the absolute minimum. • Students might add that his being omniscient (all-knowing) means that he is aware of the evils that exist. Note: This indicative content is not exhaustive: other creditworthy responses should be awarded marks as appropriate. MARK SCHEME – A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY – 7172/2 – SAMS 6 03 Outline Aquinas’ Third Way. 5 AO1 = 5 Marks Levels of response mark scheme 5 A full, clear and precise outline. The student makes logical links between precisely identified points, with no redundancy. 4 A clear outline, with logical links, but some imprecision/redundancy. 3 The substantive content of the outline is present and there is an attempt at logical linking. But the outline is not full and/or precise. 2 One or two relevant points made, but not precisely. The logic is unclear. 1 Fragmented points, with no logical structure. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit. Indicative content Students can articulate the argument in a number of ways. As long as the articulation is consistent with the Aquinas text (which is given below, for ease of reference), then credit should be given. P1: Contingent beings exist in the universe. P2: If everything were contingent there would be a time when nothing existed. P3: If this were so, there would be nothing now as nothing comes from nothing. P4: Since contingent things do exist now (P1), there must be something that exists necessarily. C: Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily. Students might continue this argument in the following way: P5: Every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not. P6: An infinite regression of causes is impossible. C: There must be a necessary being (ie a being that has, of itself, its own necessity) and this all people call God