Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion

Scroll to see replies

no worries
are you doing Religious Language and Theodicies?
If so what do you think will come up, or have your teachers given you any hints, as my teacher useless

I'm doing Problem of evil, and no no predictions or hints either :frown:

Reply 141

arrow_h

Original post by Karan24H

no worries
are you doing Religious Language and Theodicies?
If so what do you think will come up, or have your teachers given you any hints, as my teacher useless

Btw, can I use Hume for Anselm? because he says the idea of necessary existence was meaningless?

Reply 142

Karan24H

Original post by arrow_h

Btw, can I use Hume for Anselm? because he says the idea of necessary existence was meaningless?

You could do,
but i would rather use the main one being Gaunillo and Aquinas is a really good one as well

Reply 143

arrow_h

Original post by Karan24H

You could do,
but i would rather use the main one being Gaunillo and Aquinas is a really good one as well

Alright thanks

Reply 144

Haiych

Has anyone got notes on ontological argument they could share with me?

Reply 145

ma246

Can someone summarise Hicks argument-irenaeus theodicy for me pleaseee i am getting so confused :frown:

I only started revising today and i have chemistry unit 4 tomorrow. I am screwed

Reply 146

ma246

Thank you soooo much i appreciate all your help....Sorry for bothering everyone but how would you answer this question:
‘Theexistence of moral evil is more difficult to justify than the existence ofnatural evil,’-How far do you agree.

Reply 147

KaurNav

Original post by Karan24H

Is anyone actually ready for this exam?
There is so much to remember.
Exams are over soon, but so much to do before

Spoiler

Nope not at all. Btw what topic u doing for the synoptic paper??

Reply 148

arrow_h

If it were to ask Outline 2key objections against the ontological argument and explain the responses madeby them.
Would you just need to give Gaunilo/Kant/Aquinas? So no response by Anselm

Reply 149

cherrybanana

Can someone pleaseeeeeeeee outline all the main criticisms of the OA (falling under definition of God, existence as a predicate, existential claims), state who they are aimed at (Anselm/Descartes/both) and the responses? :biggrin:

I am getting confused as there are so many overlaps e.g. with Kant, Hume, Russell

Reply 150

KaurNav

Original post by arrow_h

If it were to ask Outline 2key objections against the ontological argument and explain the responses madeby them.
Would you just need to give Gaunilo/Kant/Aquinas? So no response by Anselm

Responses are made by Plantinga and Malcolm.i guess you could also include Hartshorne.

Reply 151

cherrybanana

also, when referring to the Ontological argument throughout our essays, do we need to put a capital O for ontological??

Reply 152

arrow_h

Original post by KaurNav

Responses are made by Plantinga and Malcolm.i guess you could also include Hartshorne.

But it says objections, aren't Plantinga and Malcolm just responses?

Reply 153

Jehaan

Original post by arrow_h

But it says objections, aren't Plantinga and Malcolm just responses?

I think I misread your question as I read it as objections and their responses which is also a question you can get (sorry revision is making me crazy)

Reply 154

arrow_h

Original post by Jehaan

I think I misread your question as I read it as objections and their responses which is also a question you can get (sorry revision is making me crazy)

So how do we answer it?

Reply 155

Jehaan

Maybe 8 million Jews died but God saved 2 million could be an argument against yours but we will never know what God has done only what occurs

Reply 156

Jehaan

Original post by ma246

No bother its actually quite good practice!
I actually think this would be a great question
I have made a short essay plan as I assume this would only be worth 20 marks.

•

FWD justifies moral evil due to free will which makes natural evil harder to justify

•

Free will harder due to the bad choices people make and the fact God allows these bad choices to occur

•

Natural harder as logical problem of evil could justify existence of free will and therefore moral but not natural evil

•

Free will harder as evidential problem- can suffering of Baby Sue be justified?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 157

arrow_h

Original post by Jehaan

No bother its actually quite good practice!
I actually think this would be a great question
I have made a short essay plan as I assume this would only be worth 30 marks.

•

FWD justifies moral evil due to free will which makes natural evil harder to justify