Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    here are some on life after death Religious Langage Revelation Religious Experience

    Very easy, in bite sized chunks - made my learning of it so much simpler - includes sample essay questions, approaches and evaluation.
    Thanks so much! Do you have any on Nature of God or any of the ethics topics?
    Would be much appreciated! Thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Panicking... can anyone PLEASE explain to me the difference between Aquinas' view of God's omnipotence and Kenny's view??!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mytsrusername)
    Panicking... can anyone PLEASE explain to me the difference between Aquinas' view of God's omnipotence and Kenny's view??!
    I don't know Kenny's, but Aquinas stated that God's omnipotence meant that He can do whatever is deemed logically possible for any Godly entity to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xbabycakes)
    agreed feels like I'm learning enough information for two seperate A levels.
    You can say that again ahaha! I'm dying back here with all this stuff to remember
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wanttobeasucess)
    Thanks so much! Do you have any on Nature of God or any of the ethics topics?
    Would be much appreciated! Thanks!
    Which ethics topics?
    Here are some on God's Nature [attached]

    hope they help
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: ppt Nature_of_God.ppt (587.5 KB, 310 views)
  2. File Type: ppt Boethius.ppt (1.38 MB, 515 views)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are there any example essays for the nature of God? Or any example essays of any question, would like to have a better idea of how to structure my answers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone feel like monday is going to be a pointless day?

    No way am I going to get the grade I want
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mytsrusername)
    Panicking... can anyone PLEASE explain to me the difference between Aquinas' view of God's omnipotence and Kenny's view??!
    Hahaha I just looked in the book because I was wondering this too. To me they're both the same, it's just that Aquinas also mentions that God cannot change history because it is illogical.

    This is so confusing.

    Edit: Maybe for Aquinas, God can do what is logically possible for a perfect being like God to do. E.g. A perfect God can create, therefore God creates.

    For Kenny, it is just about God having the power to do the what is logically possible for God to do? I dunno

    However, they sound the same to me...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    good luck everyone for monday i just finished my notes and gonna spend $ hours in the library before work tomorrow and all day sunday reading them something i found helpful was i a sheep with the main points that my teacher gave me and got my sister to question me on main details foe each of the scholars for each topic like a qick fire round it gets my brain thinking an high lights my weak areas aswell as checking if im actually taking in any of my notes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When I write answers to these questions, I always end up giving quite generic answers and not really catering to the question in hand.

    I just tried to answer "Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly". Discuss.

    I only couldnt find too many angles to bring Boethius into the answer and Im doing this for other questions too.. ;(
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No.1 Loner)
    When I write answers to these questions, I always end up giving quite generic answers and not really catering to the question in hand.

    I just tried to answer "Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly". Discuss.

    I only couldnt find too many angles to bring Boethius into the answer and Im doing this for other questions too.. ;(
    Just make a case for Boethius argument, saying what makes it strong and why its successful making links to other things. And then think of all the criticisms you can for it, thats all thats needed. You don't have to write loads of stuff just make sure what you write fully answers the question and demonstrates you can think for your self.

    i'd love to help you with this question but i've not revised at all for this exam yet, just going to cram on sunday!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No.1 Loner)
    When I write answers to these questions, I always end up giving quite generic answers and not really catering to the question in hand.

    I just tried to answer "Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly". Discuss.

    I only couldnt find too many angles to bring Boethius into the answer and Im doing this for other questions too.. ;(
    I'd set it out as followed:

    According to Boethius, God knows the past, present and future, thus has foreknowledge, but does not cause the future to happen. He simply sees us in our timelines progressing. Therefore, since he does not cause our futures to happen, we have free will.

    Possibly mention Christianity and how this idea of us being free supports Christian teachings - Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

    Then relate it back to the question: Since we have free will, we are morally responsible for our behaviour, and can be rewarded or punished. In that sense, Boethius' argument is good.

    Then go on to criticise Boethius - if God knows the future but doesn't cause it, then is he still not relying upon us, as he doesn't have full control over our future? Swinburne said it was illogical to think of God seeing everything simultaneously.

    Then say that although Boethius may solve the logical problem surrounding God rewarding and punishing us, you could argue that other attributes of God are questionable because of his argument.

    Is God even benevolent if he rewards and punishes us? Kant argues that we ought to be rewarded or punished as we are not always acknowledged in this life. However, a good God should forgive us if we do wrong. Catholics would argue that you need to repent in order to be forgiven. God is benevolent enough to give us the option of repenting, but if we don't choose it then he is justified in punishing or rewarding us.

    Why did God create us if he knew that in the future we would be bad? If he was omnipotent, then he should have created perfect individuals. To link it back to the question, you could say that Boethius fails to acknowledge this point. Although he claims that God doesn't cause our futures, God could have stopped creating us because his foreknowledge would have allowed him to know that Adam and Eve would rebel in the future - however Irenaeus would argue that we need evil in this world in order to appreciate goodness and grow in God's likeness.

    You do have to mention Boethius, but you can also talk about other stuff

    You could also say that Boethius fails because he makes God seem like a Prime-Mover, simply watching over us but not interacting with his creation. If he doesn't interact with us through miracles, religious experiences and revelations, then why should he punish us?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    pease could someone explain whether Hare's lunatic analogy is a critisism of falsification or it supports it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    I'd set it out as followed:

    According to Boethius, God knows the past, present and future, thus has foreknowledge, but does not cause the future to happen. He simply sees us in our timelines progressing. Therefore, since he does not cause our futures to happen, we have free will.

    Possibly mention Christianity and how this idea of us being free supports Christian teachings - Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

    Then relate it back to the question: Since we have free will, we are morally responsible for our behaviour, and can be rewarded or punished. In that sense, Boethius' argument is good.

    Then go on to criticise Boethius - if God knows the future but doesn't cause it, then is he still not relying upon us, as he doesn't have full control over our future? Swinburne said it was illogical to think of God seeing everything simultaneously.

    Then say that although Boethius may solve the logical problem surrounding God rewarding and punishing us, you could argue that other attributes of God are questionable because of his argument.

    Is God even benevolent if he rewards and punishes us? Kant argues that we ought to be rewarded or punished as we are not always acknowledged in this life. However, a good God should forgive us if we do wrong. Catholics would argue that you need to repent in order to be forgiven. God is benevolent enough to give us the option of repenting, but if we don't choose it then he is justified in punishing or rewarding us.

    Why did God create us if he knew that in the future we would be bad? If he was omnipotent, then he should have created perfect individuals. To link it back to the question, you could say that Boethius fails to acknowledge this point. Although he claims that God doesn't cause our futures, God could have stopped creating us because his foreknowledge would have allowed him to know that Adam and Eve would rebel in the future - however Irenaeus would argue that we need evil in this world in order to appreciate goodness and grow in God's likeness.

    You do have to mention Boethius, but you can also talk about other stuff

    You could also say that Boethius fails because he makes God seem like a Prime-Mover, simply watching over us but not interacting with his creation. If he doesn't interact with us through miracles, religious experiences and revelations, then why should he punish us?
    Cheers, I think I need to put more focus on attacking the question, I sometimes ramble about things which are relevant to the topic but no necessarily relted to the question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys, was just wondering, if a question on sexual ethics comes up, is it likely to ask for the different theoretical perspectives ie. utilitarianism, natural law, virtue ethics etc. Or do you think it's important to know feminist and libertarian approaches too? And just the whole topic in general -.-
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpriteOrSevenUp)
    I'd set it out as followed:

    According to Boethius, God knows the past, present and future, thus has foreknowledge, but does not cause the future to happen. He simply sees us in our timelines progressing. Therefore, since he does not cause our futures to happen, we have free will.

    Possibly mention Christianity and how this idea of us being free supports Christian teachings - Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

    Then relate it back to the question: Since we have free will, we are morally responsible for our behaviour, and can be rewarded or punished. In that sense, Boethius' argument is good.

    Then go on to criticise Boethius - if God knows the future but doesn't cause it, then is he still not relying upon us, as he doesn't have full control over our future? Swinburne said it was illogical to think of God seeing everything simultaneously.

    Then say that although Boethius may solve the logical problem surrounding God rewarding and punishing us, you could argue that other attributes of God are questionable because of his argument.

    Is God even benevolent if he rewards and punishes us? Kant argues that we ought to be rewarded or punished as we are not always acknowledged in this life. However, a good God should forgive us if we do wrong. Catholics would argue that you need to repent in order to be forgiven. God is benevolent enough to give us the option of repenting, but if we don't choose it then he is justified in punishing or rewarding us.

    Why did God create us if he knew that in the future we would be bad? If he was omnipotent, then he should have created perfect individuals. To link it back to the question, you could say that Boethius fails to acknowledge this point. Although he claims that God doesn't cause our futures, God could have stopped creating us because his foreknowledge would have allowed him to know that Adam and Eve would rebel in the future - however Irenaeus would argue that we need evil in this world in order to appreciate goodness and grow in God's likeness.

    You do have to mention Boethius, but you can also talk about other stuff

    You could also say that Boethius fails because he makes God seem like a Prime-Mover, simply watching over us but not interacting with his creation. If he doesn't interact with us through miracles, religious experiences and revelations, then why should he punish us?
    I really hope this exact question comes up now. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    anyone any notes on sexual ethics? would MAJORLY appreciate as my teacher never taught it to us :'( xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetCrunkedUp)
    Hey guys, was just wondering, if a question on sexual ethics comes up, is it likely to ask for the different theoretical perspectives ie. utilitarianism, natural law, virtue ethics etc. Or do you think it's important to know feminist and libertarian approaches too? And just the whole topic in general -.-
    If it asked for a Christian approach, you could contrast it with libertarian and feminist approaches.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GetCrunkedUp)
    anyone any notes on sexual ethics? would MAJORLY appreciate as my teacher never taught it to us :'( xxx
    http://philosophicalinvestigations.c...tent&Itemid=54
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplefrog)
    here are some on life after death Religious Langage Revelation Religious Experience

    Very easy, in bite sized chunks - made my learning of it so much simpler - includes sample essay questions, approaches and evaluation.
    Good helpful site but be wary, there were a few misconceptions-Ryle is NOT a materialist.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 23, 2012
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.