[Theodicy]

Hi everyone,

I had a bit of a sleepless night following an exam question that came up in the paper on the 16th May.

The question was 'Examine the evidence used to support the Cosmological argument'

It seems slightly ambiguous to me....does it mean look at the strengths (as evidence) or look at the argument as a whole (Brief Intro for PLato/Aristotle Aquinas' 3 ways and the Kalam argument)

I need some reassurance!

[301lw]

(Original post by Theodicy)
Hi everyone,

I had a bit of a sleepless night following an exam question that came up in the paper on the 16th May.

The question was 'Examine the evidence used to support the Cosmological argument'

It seems slightly ambiguous to me....does it mean look at the strengths (as evidence) or look at the argument as a whole (Brief Intro for PLato/Aristotle Aquinas' 3 ways and the Kalam argument)

I need some reassurance!

well it says 'evidence to support' so i'm guessing strengths
was it a part a or a part b question?

[Theodicy]

(Original post by 301lw)
well it says 'evidence to support' so i'm guessing strengths
was it a part a or a part b question?

Part A; I started to talk about Aquinas Looks like i'm pretty much guaranteed a U now

[301lw]

(Original post by Theodicy)
Part A; I started to talk about Aquinas Looks like i'm pretty much guaranteed a U now

that's such a weird part a question, don't worry i'm sure the examiner will credit you for the knowledge you put into it and i'm sure alot of people would have been throw off by the question