The Student Room Group

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion

Scroll to see replies

Reply 240
Avatar for Shaq96
Shaq96
1
ok, clearly theres some ambiguity surrounding what 'non-cognitive' means. anyone know?
Reply 241
Avatar for _ana20
_ana20
I talked about how language games don't really speak meaningful of god and I talked about the criticisms, I also talked about Via Negativa is a better suggestion, would I get marked down for this?
Reply 242
Avatar for _ana20
_ana20
Original post by Shaq96
ok, clearly theres some ambiguity surrounding what 'non-cognitive' means. anyone know?


I said non-cognitive is neither true or false and it cannot be proven. I used analogies, myths and symbols as examples of non-cognitive language.
Original post by Haiych
The way i read the question i thought it was talking about the specific objection and to elabroate on it i didn't mention Aquinus' argument or humes. Only talked about how definitions don't necessarily mean something exists and elaborated on it :s-smilie:? is that wrong?


Yes unfortunately :frown: If you have done previous past papers, there have been questions which have involved key objections for Anselm, and you must use philosophers to support your point! Who else would of made the objections if it wasn't for the philosophers? :P I'm sorry :frown: Still try your best for unit 4A, hope is not lost! If you wrote a lot about it and included at least Guanilo you shouldn't have done too bad. Best of luck!
I wrote only about Aquinas and Hume for that question as well as stating what Anselm and Descartes' definitions of God were...everyone else I spoke to mentioned Kant, Russell, Davies and Gaunilo and not Aquinas or Hume...totally confused if I did the right thing or not!
I've forgotten what the question was actually asking - was it deriving existence from the definition of God (i.e. Davies and Gaunilo) or the definition of God (Aquinas and Hume)? Bit worried about this paper!
Original post by Anon113
Yes unfortunately :frown: If you have done previous past papers, there have been questions which have involved key objections for Anselm, and you must use philosophers to support your point! Who else would of made the objections wrote a lot about it and included at least Guanilo you shouldn't have done too bad

I didn't know how to bring up guanilo in that one because he spoke about the island so I just used squints and Kant but I used Quanilo him for the second part of the question in stead is that ok?
Oh dear...not expecting much in terms of grades then :frown:
Reply 248
Avatar for Haiych
Haiych
1
Original post by Anon113
Yes unfortunately :frown: If you have done previous past papers, there have been questions which have involved key objections for Anselm, and you must use philosophers to support your point! Who else would of made the objections if it wasn't for the philosophers? :P I'm sorry :frown: Still try your best for unit 4A, hope is not lost! If you wrote a lot about it and included at least Guanilo you shouldn't have done too bad. Best of luck!


I wrote 2 pages worth, and talked about how definitions only tells us what something would be like if it existed. It doesn't mean that something exists. Gave examples. How we can move from Reality to imaginary not imaginary to reality. And just elaborated and focused around this literally no scholars were involved. Im guessing i wont even get half marks if you must include scholars?
(edited 7 years ago)
We shall see! Can't believe I forgot to mention Gaunilo though, he's literally the most obvious one! :s-smilie:
Haha! I'm sure you'll get some credit for it though. Let's just pray that the examiners are feeling kind :adore:
omg!!!!! that exam was so hard, couldn't believe how limited the questions were!!!

did anyone do the problem of evil???
what did u right about?? i couldn't right enough for a 30 marker just on moral and natural evil in augustines theodicy??
can't belive that Hick didnt' come up so disappointed!! all the questions were unpredicatable!!
Was i right to put Swinburne and Braithwaite for non cognitive
Swinburne says its non cognitive but still maintains its to be meaningful (toys in the cupboard analogy)
i also wrote about privatio boni and little bit on predestination. i mentioned about the original sin for moral evil but didnt right much about natural evil.
how did u find the exam overall??
Original post by KaurNav
what did u right about?? i couldn't right enough for a 30 marker just on moral and natural evil in augustines theodicy??
can't belive that Hick didnt' come up so disappointed!! all the questions were unpredicatable!!


Did you put stuff about Aquinas and Brian Davis, Calvin
Evil is not a substance but a privation of good, and makes no sense to say God created a privation
Natural evil = due to Fallen Angles and Prolapse of Mankind
Moral Evil = Human beings disobeying Gods laws, evil is the punishment

Nautal evil being the suitable punishment as mankind disrupted the natural order
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Karan24H
Did you put stuff about Aquinas and Brian Davis, Calvin
Evil is not a substance but a privation of God, and makes no sense to say God created a privation
Natural evil = due to Fallen Angles and Prolapse of Mankind
Moral Evil = Human beings disobeying Gods laws, evil is the punishment

Nautal evil being the suitable punishment as mankind disrupted the natural order


yes for the ontological one i talked about gaunilo, aquinas, and hume although i forget what hume's argument was so kinnda messed up on that one,
for the augustine one i did mention that natural evil is a result of moral evil. Tbh, i didnt revise augustine's theodicy as much n was hopin that hick would come up. so disaapointed with the exam!!:angry:
how did u do??
yeah i agree... hopefully rst4a will be easy!!
Original post by KaurNav
yes for the ontological one i talked about gaunilo, aquinas, and hume although i forget what hume's argument was so kinnda messed up on that one,
for the augustine one i did mention that natural evil is a result of moral evil. Tbh, i didnt revise augustine's theodicy as much n was hopin that hick would come up. so disaapointed with the exam!!:angry:
how did u do??


Same feeling as you. I was really disappointment. I wished soul making came up. I messed up. Not fair. Ran out of time as well
Original post by Karan24H
Same feeling as you. I was really disappointment. I wished soul making came up. I messed up. Not fair. Ran out of time as well

also i was hoping that anselm might come up. examiners are so harsh but hopefully grade boundaries will go down.
i think it was more hard as it was a replacemnt paper, i bet the original one had questions on anselm and hick.
are you doing RST4A for the second paper?/

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you