Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion

Original post by Haiych

Anselm starts of by defining God "that which nothing greater can be conceived". And claims God is the Greatest possible being by definition. His argument works on the grounds that we accept this definition. Aquinas argues that we cant prove that God exists from the concept or idea of God. We have no way of knowing our definition of God is correct since God is beyond Human Understanding. "The greatest" and "the most perfect" are not meaningful concepts, they do not have a maximum. Greatness and perfection can always be added to.

Heyy

I just wanted to ask what you mean when you say that that greatness and perfection can be added to... Is this criticism stating that the definitions proposed by Anselm and Descartes of God as the "greatest conceivable being" or "supremely perfect being" limited because they gave no maximum?

I'm slightly confused because I thought that if God is the greatest and perfect then this is the maximum!

Reply 203

Original post by anaesthetic

Is anyone able to point out which theories within religious language is cognitive and those that are not? Much appericated :smile:

And also do we have to explicity know about religious language as myths? Or can I skip that ??

I thought RL is non cognitive but it is the verification and fasification principles which mistake it as cognitive. Analogy and symbol both think of it as non cognitive I think

Reply 204

Haiych

1

Original post by cherrybanana

Heyy

I just wanted to ask what you mean when you say that that greatness and perfection can be added to... Is this criticism stating that the definitions proposed by Anselm and Descartes of God as the "greatest conceivable being" or "supremely perfect being" limited because they gave no maximum?

I'm slightly confused because I thought that if God is the greatest and perfect then this is the maximum!

Aquinas believed that greatness and perfection can always be added to, hence they were not meaningful when trying to understand God. The same way a number can always be added to. So can the idea of perfection.

Reply 205

Original post by ma246

can someone answer this as a 30 marker-logical/evidential problem of evil
i am stressing so bad i am revising today man i want to cry

What exactly would the question be?
I'm taking it as explain the problem of evil in regard to the logical and evidential problem
I'd start off by explaining the nature of either
Logical- a priori- true by definition- inconsistent triad
Process Thought's response in that it solves the logical PoE
Evidential- William Rowe- case of Baby Sue and the fawn Bambi
Skeptical Theist's response
End with the fact that no theodicy can deal with both as they are undefendable without compromising the idea of the God of classical theism

Reply 206

Nemmeros

6

Original post by Jehaan

I thought RL is non cognitive but it is the verification and fasification principles which mistake it as cognitive. Analogy and symbol both think of it as non cognitive I think

They don't make the mistake of calling it cognitive. They are cognitivist theories and therefore believe that for a statement to have meaning, it must covey facts. They argue due the non-cognitive nature of religious language, it is unverifiable and thus making it meaningless.

Reply 207

arrow_h

3

Original post by Jehaan

What exactly would the question be?
I'm taking it as explain the problem of evil in regard to the logical and evidential problem
I'd start off by explaining the nature of either
Logical- a priori- true by definition- inconsistent triad
Process Thought's response in that it solves the logical PoE
Evidential- William Rowe- case of Baby Sue and the fawn Bambi
Skeptical Theist's response
End with the fact that no theodicy can deal with both as they are undefendable without compromising the idea of the God of classical theism

Wait, can't you use theodicies to answer that question? Like Augustine's, FWD, Irenaeus and Hick?

Reply 208

Original post by arrow_h

Wait, can't you use theodicies to answer that question? Like Augustine's, FWD, Irenaeus and Hick?

It depends on the question if it is something like how has religion responded to the logical and evidential problem of evil then you could include the theodicies but I just didn't see the question so I made one up

Reply 209

Nemmeros

6

Original post by anaesthetic

Is anyone able to point out which theories within religious language is cognitive and those that are not? Much appericated :smile:

And also do we have to explicity know about religious language as myths? Or can I skip that ??

Non- cognitive approaches would be coming from Tillich and Randall (symbols), Bultman and McQaurrie (Myths), Aquinas (Analogy) and Braithwaite.

The opposing side is cognitivist theorists Ayer and Flew (Verification and Falsification). They do not argue Religious Language is cognitive, they argue it can not be cognitive as it is unverifiable and not able to be empirically tested, thus they concluded Religious Language is meaningless.

Reply 210

Original post by Haiych

Aquinas believed that greatness and perfection can always be added to, hence they were not meaningful when trying to understand God. The same way a number can always be added to. So can the idea of perfection.

Ahhhh I get it!! Thanks so much :biggrin:

Reply 211

Any final predictions for Ontological argument and Body, Soul and Personal Identity?

Exam's tomorrow!!!!! :biggrin:

I'm so nervous!

Reply 212

Haiych

1

What are the objections to Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga - OA

Reply 213

anaesthetic

Original post by Jehaan

I thought RL is non cognitive but it is the verification and fasification principles which mistake it as cognitive. Analogy and symbol both think of it as non cognitive I think

Thanks

Reply 214

anaesthetic

Original post by Nemmeros

Non- cognitive approaches would be coming from Tillich and Randall (symbols), Bultman and McQaurrie (Myths), Aquinas (Analogy) and Braithwaite.

The opposing side is cognitivist theorists Ayer and Flew (Verification and Falsification). They do not argue Religious Language is cognitive, they argue it can not be cognitive as it is unverifiable and not able to be empirically tested, thus they concluded Religious Language is meaningless.

Thanks a lot, this makes my life a lot more easier. :smile:

Reply 215

Nemmeros

6

This is a document containing objections along with responses to the Ontological Argument

Original post by Nemmeros

This is a document containing objections along with responses to the Ontological Argument

This is so helpful and clearly set out!!

Thank you so much!

Reply 217

Can someone please define personal identity!!!!!!!!!!

Reply 218

arrow_h

3

To be honest I started revising process thought today, because of the paper withdrawal thing, so I'd just outline the theodicy and what Griffin said

Reply 219