Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

KaurNav

Original post by Karan24H

Thank you so much !!!

it ok friend! :tongue:

Reply 101

Karan24H

Original post by KaurNav

i hope its doesn't! :tongue:

it would make sense for them to do Soul making, because i don't think they have actually asked about Hick by itself, like they have done with the other theodicies

Reply 102

Jehaan

Original post by Karan24H

is there a way in which you can add what you mean to my response? my head at this moment is full of pain

Got religious language
Ontological
Theodicy

there is so much

If you think this is a lot, you should try Alevel Biology! I put in bold what I added xD

- Alvin Platinga developed the notion of possible worlds
- He offers the description of a possible world where there exists a being with 'maximal greatness'.
- A being can only have 'maximal greatness' if it exists in all possible worlds.
- However, this does not mean God, as Platinga maintained that for a being to be maximally great, it must exist within all possible worlds.

•

Plantinga introduced the idea of “maximal excellence” which entails all the omnis and moral perfection Therefore:

•

There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great

•

If it's maximally great this being must exist in our world

•

This being has maximal greatness so it must also have maximal excellence
- According to Davis, even if we accept that there exists a being with maximal greatness, and therefore this being has the possibility to exists in our world, this does not mean that this being actually exists.
- Therefore, all that is signifiant within Platinga's response is the element possibility. Platinga argues that a being with 'maximal greatness is possible'.
- Therefore the God of classical theism is possible.

Reply 103

Karan24H

Original post by Jehaan

Thank you so much my friend

Reply 104

Jehaan

Original post by Karan24H

it would make sense for them to do Soul making, because i don't think they have actually asked about Hick by itself, like they have done with the other theodicies

They asked for vale of soul making in june 2010 but saying that the only theodicy to be asked twice is free will so it could easily be Augustine or Process (I'm thinking more Augustine though)

Reply 105

Jehaan

Original post by KaurNav

i'm not doing religious language, hate that topic. :tongue:

I also hate religious language but I think the questions set on it are easiest as you don't have to learn as much as you can just insert parables

Reply 106

Jehaan

Original post by Karan24H

For religious language do you guys think that i have enough:
- Logical Positivists
- A J Ayer
- Falsification Principle
- R.M Hare
- Swinburne
- Mitchell
- Ian Ramsey
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
- Anti Realist
- R. B Braithwaite
- Myth
- Symbols
- Aquinas
- Eschatological Verification

I would say that is more than enough and I probably only recognise half of it

Reply 107

arrow_h

Will process thought come up this year????

Reply 108

Karan24H

Original post by arrow_h

Will process thought come up this year????

To be honest it came up in 2014
Outline the concepts of natural evil and moral evil and explain how process thought responds to the problem of evil.

However, you never. AQA seems to hate me, so they will give me all the hard questions

Reply 109

Haiych

When answering the 20 mark questions are we supposed to reference scholars?

Reply 110

Jehaan

Original post by Haiych

When answering the 20 mark questions are we supposed to reference scholars?

I would say mostly yes. For example, if you get a question on whether the ontological argument is successful you could use scholars to get a more rounded view and it generally makes your argument more logical.
(Plus it gives the illusion that you know what you are talking about)

Reply 111

cherrybanana

For the Ethics paper (RST4C Moral-Decision Making),is it possible that this question can come up:

"Examine the ethical issues raised when using [telelogical/deontological/hybrid ethical systems] to make moral decisions" rather than asking about the ethical issues arising from areas of medical research?

Or would this question be too alike to an A02 question?

And if it were likely to come up what would we discuss? :smile:

Reply 112

arrow_h

Hi guys, say it asked outline anselms ontological argument and the objections/ responses made to them which objections should I include and if it asked outline ontological argument (so including descartes) which responses and objections should I make?
I have:
Gaunilo
Kant
Aquinas
Hume
Gassendi
Caterus
Russell

Reply 113

Karan24H

does anyone know what D.Z Philips said in response to language games.

Reply 114

Haiych

how do you guys revise for re??

Reply 115

Karan24H

Original post by Haiych

how do you guys revise for re??

I just started Lol
whats your way?

Reply 116

Haiych

Original post by Karan24H

I just started Lol
whats your way?

You give me hope :smile:

. I memorise key arguments and then try to put it into practice by doing some past papers questions. Also reading sample answers is very helpful!

Reply 117

KaurNav

Original post by Jehaan

I also hate religious language but I think the questions set on it are easiest as you don't have to learn as much as you can just insert parables

i agree but i just hate revising for it and rather do problem of evil even though its a bigger topic and you have to learn more for it. :u:

Reply 118

KaurNav

Original post by Karan24H

does anyone know what D.Z Philips said in response to language games.

he opposes this idea and argues that it prevents philophy of religion as it suggest that no one who s outisde the game can criticise the belief. he also develops wittgenstein's approach by arguing that some of the problems caused by RL exist ecause we take language literally.

hope that helps. :wink: