Final answer:
If an argument using the RAA strategy does not result in a contradiction, it is considered invalid as it fails to establish its conclusion with certainty. This is due to the structure of the argument, not the truth value of its premises or conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
When using the Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) strategy in deductive reasoning, if you cannot generate a contradiction, then the argument is considered to be invalid. This outcome relates to the structure of the argument rather than the truth of its premises or conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. In an RAA, you begin by assuming the opposite of what you are trying to prove. If this assumption leads to a logical contradiction, then the original statement must be true. However, if no contradiction is found, the argument fails to meet criteria for validity.
In the given example regarding Anselm's argument for the existence of God, the inability to derive a contradiction would mean that the argument does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God exists, rendering it invalid. It is critical to note that an invalid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false, but simply that the argument's structure is not sufficient to guarantee the conclusion's truth.