Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _ana20)
    Hi,

    What did you guys put as language games enables believers to speak meaningfully about God?
    I think that question was really hard.
    I talked about how different people may think they are in the same language game but they are not eg theists in different language games so they cannot talk about God meaningfully. I also talked about how they can talk about God meaningfully as if they have the exact same experiences they are in the same game. Also being an lg stops critiscism therefore it cannot work. Finally no empirical proof so can't talk about God meaningfully
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lydiadoran)
    Hello,
    Did anyone else notice the paper reference was RST3BR and not RST3B?
    Does anyone know whether this means that the paper was a revised paper since I know last years AQA psychology paper was called PSYA4R as apposed to PSYA4 due to the original paper being stolen?
    Curious
    AQA used the backup paper this year, for some reason. The original could have been physically stolen, but more likely leaked online. So yes, it wasn't the one they had originally intended to give us
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ok, clearly theres some ambiguity surrounding what 'non-cognitive' means. anyone know?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ? is that wrong?
    Yes unfortunately 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 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!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon113)
    Yes unfortunately 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 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 about Aquinas, Hume, Brian Davies (as he does discuss deriving existential claims from a definition) and Gaunilo. Is that right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohmyapplepie)
    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!
    In the textbook those who write about definitions are Aquinas and Hume, and deriving existence claims was from Brian Davies, I popped in Gaunilo last minute. I felt that I would struggle with the rest as it was predicates
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    In the textbook those who write about definitions are Aquinas and Hume, and deriving existence claims was from Brian Davies, I popped in Gaunilo last minute. I felt that I would struggle with the rest as it was predicates
    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!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohmyapplepie)
    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!
    definitely deriving existence of God based on his definition
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Anon113;65808947]Yes unfortunately 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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    definitely deriving existence of God based on his definition
    Oh dear...not expecting much in terms of grades then
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohmyapplepie)
    Oh dear...not expecting much in terms of grades then
    No I think you went on the right lines don't worry! I felt talking about his predicates using Russell and Kant was too complicated as it wasn't really the definition, so Hume and Aqiunas and Brian Davies were to follow, as well as Gaunilio as he uses Anselms concept and defintion of God as ttwngcbc to be something into existence, hence the perfect island analogy. You got some of the right philosophers
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anon113)
    Yes unfortunately 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 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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    No I think you went on the right lines don't worry! I felt talking about his predicates using Russell and Kant was too complicated as it wasn't really the definition, so Hume and Aqiunas and Brian Davies were to follow, as well as Gaunilio as he uses Anselms concept and defintion of God as ttwngcbc to be something into existence, hence the perfect island analogy. You got some of the right philosophers
    We shall see! Can't believe I forgot to mention Gaunilo though, he's literally the most obvious one!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohmyapplepie)
    We shall see! Can't believe I forgot to mention Gaunilo though, he's literally the most obvious one!
    believe me, I wrote him last minute and in the most lacking of detail ever and I don't think examiners will be able to read my hand writing
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    believe me, I wrote him last minute and in the most lacking of detail ever and I don't think examiners will be able to read my hand writing
    Haha! I'm sure you'll get some credit for it though. Let's just pray that the examiners are feeling kind :adore:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    omg!!!!! that exam was so hard, couldn't believe how limited the questions were!!!

    did anyone do the problem of evil???
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KaurNav)
    omg!!!!! that exam was so hard, couldn't believe how limited the questions were!!!

    did anyone do the problem of evil???
    i did!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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