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

Aqa RST3B A2 2016 Predictions Philosophy of Religion Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KaurNav)
    Responses are made by Plantinga and Malcolm.i guess you could also include Hartshorne.
    But it says objections, aren't Plantinga and Malcolm just responses?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    But it says objections, aren't Plantinga and Malcolm just responses?
    I think I misread your question as I read it as objections and their responses which is also a question you can get (sorry revision is making me crazy)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    I think I misread your question as I read it as objections and their responses which is also a question you can get (sorry revision is making me crazy)
    So how do we answer it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma246)
    Thank you soooo much i appreciate all your help....Sorry for bothering everyone but how would you answer this question:
    ‘Theexistence of moral evil is more difficult to justify than the existence ofnatural evil,’-How far do you agree.
    Hmmm I think I'd say natural evil is required for qualities such as courage and teamwork as demonstrated in the Haiti earthquake. Without it we wouldn't develop as Helen Keller says 'development can't take place with ease and in quietness'. Moral evil is the ultimate consequence of free will which is hard to explain in times of need ie the Holocaust where God's qualities aren't explainable. If he was omnipotent, why did 6 million jews die instead of 4 million? I think I'd panic if I saw this question tbh :/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    So how do we answer it?
    2 objections, ie Gaunilo and Aquainas and the responses made by them so counter them with Plantinga or Frege or Descartes for example

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Hmmm I think I'd say natural evil is required for qualities such as courage and teamwork as demonstrated in the Haiti earthquake. Without it we wouldn't develop as Helen Keller says 'development can't take place with ease and in quietness'. Moral evil is the ultimate consequence of free will which is hard to explain in times of need ie the Holocaust where God's qualities aren't explainable. If he was omnipotent, why did 6 million jews die instead of 4 million? I think I'd panic if I saw this question tbh :/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Maybe 8 million Jews died but God saved 2 million could be an argument against yours but we will never know what God has done only what occurs
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma246)
    Thank you soooo much i appreciate all your help....Sorry for bothering everyone but how would you answer this question:
    ‘Theexistence of moral evil is more difficult to justify than the existence ofnatural evil,’-How far do you agree.
    No bother its actually quite good practice!
    I actually think this would be a great question
    I have made a short essay plan as I assume this would only be worth 20 marks.
    • FWD justifies moral evil due to free will which makes natural evil harder to justify
    • Free will harder due to the bad choices people make and the fact God allows these bad choices to occur
    • Natural harder as logical problem of evil could justify existence of free will and therefore moral but not natural evil
    • Free will harder as evidential problem- can suffering of Baby Sue be justified?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    No bother its actually quite good practice!
    I actually think this would be a great question
    I have made a short essay plan as I assume this would only be worth 30 marks.
    • FWD justifies moral evil due to free will which makes natural evil harder to justify
    • Free will harder due to the bad choices people make and the fact God allows these bad choices to occur
    • Natural harder as logical problem of evil could justify existence of free will and therefore moral but not natural evil
    • Free will harder as evidential problem- can suffering of Baby Sue be justified?
    It was an A02 in 2012
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arrow_h)
    It was an A02 in 2012
    Whoops I meant 20. You can clearly see what revision is doing to my brain
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jehaan)
    Whoops I meant 20. You can clearly see what revision is doing to my brain
    Hahaha, btw you know for A02's, you can talk about theodices and philosophers right but you give your opinion too?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherrybanana)
    also, when referring to the Ontological argument throughout our essays, do we need to put a capital O for ontological??
    Don't think so because we didn't for cosmological. Books, names, etc always capitals. And last name not first name alone

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Don't think so because we didn't for cosmological. Books, names, etc always capitals. And last name not first name alone

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    thanks!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Which criticisms do Malcolm and Plantinga respond to?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hunnybeebee)
    Don't think so because we didn't for cosmological. Books, names, etc always capitals. And last name not first name alone

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I just wanted to ask!

    Kant's criticises the OA by stating that existence cannot be an analytic proposition as it is a synthetic one... Which category of cricisisms does this fall under:
    1) definition of God
    2) existence as a predicate
    3) deriving existential claims from definition?

    Also, what is Hume's criticisms of the OA?

    Please help!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherrybanana)
    I just wanted to ask!

    Kant's criticises the OA by stating that existence cannot be an analytic proposition as it is a synthetic one... Which category of cricisisms does this fall under:
    1) definition of God
    2) existence as a predicate
    3) deriving existential claims from definition?

    Also, what is Hume's criticisms of the OA?

    Please help!
    It's objection based on the use of existence as a predicate.

    Huna is an empiricist and said knowledge must be provable using scientific methods and that evidenc needed to back up claims.
    No such thing as ' necessary' existence- everything that exists is contingent.
    He also said that existence is not a predicate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wish we could just get the questions! it so hard, you need have your focus on all the 3 topics, and the harsh reality is, you have to choose 2.
    But you have to revise for 3, or like what happened to me last year, such an easy question cam up for cosmological argument, and did not revise it. Now its so frustrating.
    Does anyone have any actual predictions for

    Religious Language
    Ontological Argument
    Theodicies

    What have you teachers said about these topics, if you are doing them.
    revision is driving me mad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just quickly guys, if it says explain the views of religious language is non-congivitve, what theories am i looking to put in

    - Hare
    - Wittgenstein
    - Eschatological Verification
    - Swinburne

    what that be enough
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    Wish we could just get the questions! it so hard, you need have your focus on all the 3 topics, and the harsh reality is, you have to choose 2.
    But you have to revise for 3, or like what happened to me last year, such an easy question cam up for cosmological argument, and did not revise it. Now its so frustrating.
    Does anyone have any actual predictions for

    Religious Language
    Ontological Argument
    Theodicies

    What have you teachers said about these topics, if you are doing them.
    revision is driving me mad
    There's no point predicting as the paper was leaked so it's a replacement paper so will not follow any patterns
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Karan24H)
    Just quickly guys, if it says explain the views of religious language is non-congivitve, what theories am i looking to put in

    - Hare
    - Wittgenstein
    - Eschatological Verification
    - Swinburne

    what that be enough
    If I got a question about RL being non cognitive I'd focus more on Braithwaite RL as moral discourse, evocative ect but those seem fine as well
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. I think it actually says in the level descriptors that you should include scholarly opinion but I often forget the name of scholars so I just put it in as my opinions as it can ask what do you think

    (Original post by arrow_h)
    Hahaha, btw you know for A02's, you can talk about theodices and philosophers right but you give your opinion too?
 
 
 
  • 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.