Group for those who do OCR A2 Philosophy & Ethics [Post Exam Discussion]

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.

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

agreed feels like I'm learning enough information for two seperate A levels.

Thanks so much! Do you have any on Nature of God or any of the ethics topics?
Would be much appreciated! Thanks!

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

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.. ;(

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?

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?

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 -.-

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

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.