a) explain what it means to say that 'God' is good.

•  Teachings in the book of Job, psalms.
• Using philopshers such as St. Thomas Aquinas would have said about the word 'good' when it is applied to God; namely that God cannot be 'good' in the sense that human beings can be as he is without limit, omnipotent.

a) explain the nature of the problem of evil.

(25 marks)

• Inconsistent Triad, expressed in philosophers such as Epicurus or David Hume.
• God not being all-loving, not being all-powerful or both as their explanations of the triad.
• Only a problem for certain descriptions of God.
• Aristotles God, would be quite indifferent to human suffering.
• Split the nature of the problem into two different approaches: moral evil, flows from human choices, raising the problem as to why God permits humans to behave as they do. Secondly, natural evil which is evil that comes from sources other than humanity (natural disasters, illness etc..)
• Using Theodicies, explore the issure of the nature of the problem! (Augustine's or Irenaeus)

b) 'Moral evil may be fault of humanity but, natural evil is God's fault.' Discuss.

(10 Marks)

• Many may make an issue of the distinction in the statement that responsibility for the exsistence of moral evil is at best ambigous, but the evil in the natural world must be the responsibility of God.
• Focus on the question as to whether or not it is right to look for someone or som divinity ro blame for any of the many sufferings which are brought about by either natue or man's inhumanity to man.
• Some interpretations of the Fall, natural evil is something for which are human beings generically bear responsibility.
• Apply your knowledge of the theodicies to explore different ways of responding to this statement. It is important to apply your knowledge, you need to be able to justify your argument, use examples, provide evidence and most importantly show understanding and be able to analysis both viewpoints. As it is your ability to apply knowldge and show understanding that the markers want to see!!

a) Explain what Kant means by 'Summon Bonum'.

(25 Marks)

• Use Kant's discussion of Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives as a into response to this question. It is important that uou do not just write everything you know about the Imperatives.
• Recognise the importance of the reason to Kant, begin by pointing to his belief that rationally, perfect virtue ought to be rewarded by perfect happiness. It is therefore the combination of the perfect happiness and perfecr goodness which brings about the Summon Bonum.
• Disscuss the issue of whether or not Kant is right to say that the Summon Bonum should be achieveable as 'ought' implies 'can'.
• Disscuss the question of whether the existsence of the idea of a Summon Bonum leads naturally to the conclusion that there should bea a God to make sure it happens.

b) 'The existence of marality is not evidence for the exsistence of God.' Discuss.

(10 Marks)

• There are a number of routes you could take in order to answer this question:
• You could attack the statement saying there is no real evidence of morality as such; merely social conventions for getting along with each other and therefore one cannot postulate the existence of a God in this way.
• You may say that while morality does exist and is part of human nature there is not reason for suggesting there it therefore a God, merely an evolutionary response to protect the species, for example.
• Others may argue that morality does indeed come from an innate sense of duty and that the only way human beings could have sense is if some higher power placed is there at their creation.

a) Compare the concept of a Prime Mover with the idea of God as a craftsman.

(25 Marks)

• Associate the concept of Prime Mover in this question with the writings of Aristotle and begin bu explaining what he meant by this concept. They may also introduce the idea of infinite regress at this point as a support fot the belief of the Prime Mover.
• Go on to explain the significantly different view that God in fact has crafted the entire universe, making Him involved in creation at an inimate level in a way that a Prime Mover, with no other involvement, could never be. Raise the issure of the craftsman also being a sustainer though you would need to make the connection to the question explicit.
• You may also compare the motivation of these two philosophies, explaining that for many Greeks creation was something to explain through philosophy but for exploring a philosophy, in the sense of way a life, which was baout developing a relationship with their God.

b) 'Only philoshophers can explain creation.' Discuss.

(10 Marks)

• Build on the work you have already done in part (a) possibly raising the question as to whether or not creation is a philosophical or theological issue. Those who argue that the question is basically a theological one will disagree with the statement above but should make an attempt to support their view with the argument and not just assert it as a proclamation of faith.
• Or you may start from a position of philosophy being the only way to raise questions of our exsistence and understanding of the universe, and the assess the extent to which philosophers have been successful in explaining the nature of creation. Alternatively assess the extent to which a deist (belief in the exsistence of a supreme being, specifically one that is a creator but does not intervene with the earth) approach has been more successful that a theist or a atheist approach to this question.