Final answer:
If one cannot generate a contradiction using the Reductio Ad Absurdum strategy, the argument may be inconclusive. The RAA strategy requires a contradiction to disprove an assumption; absence of a contradiction means that the argument could be invalid or insufficient evidence exists.
Step-by-step explanation:
When using the Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) strategy, if you cannot generate a contradiction, then the argument may be inconclusive. In the RAA strategy, an initial assumption is made, and logical implications of this assumption are explored. If these implications lead to a contradiction, the initial assumption is deemed false, thereby validating the opposite claim. This is how a typical RAA strategy works, as illustrated in the argument for the existence of God. However, if a contradiction is not found, one cannot conclude the argument to be correct; rather, it indicates that the argument might not be valid or the initial assumption could be true, but there is no sufficient evidence to prove it within the scope of argument provided. In the case of Anselm's argument for the existence of God, if the premise 'God does not exist' does not lead to a logical impossibility, then the argument by contradiction fails and we cannot necessarily conclude that 'God exists'. It is important to consider alternative explanations or the possibility of insufficient evidence rather than immediately accepting the opposite viewpoint. This critical approach aligns with the views of careful thinkers and philosophers who evaluate such arguments.