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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I basically forgot irenaeus' theodicy and just said stuff about how he looks at Genesis and how we are made in the image of God and learn from mistakes to become in the likeness of God (I forgot to say how we are born immature) I did mention Augustine tho and how they differ from each other.. lol would I get any marks?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Well that went terribly .. I did iraneaus and Kant because the part B on the other questions was just no.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For the Iranaeus question would I loose marks for talking about Hick ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    That was immense! Plato STILL hasn't come up!!!! I did Kant and Anselm.... However in the Anselm one I did two paras on his arguments then a third on Descartes.. Will I get marks for mentioning Descartes even tho the Q was asking to explain Anselm's attempt to demonstrate God's existence?! I hope so cause I had nothing else to write lol
    The question specifically said Anselm. So you had to discuss both parts to his ontological argument in detail. You wont be marked on your answer on Descartes. Also you could have included Gauinillo's critisism of Anselms ideas and also write Anselms reply to him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think that exam was ok. It couldve gone better. I did Anselm and Kant.
    In my class there was mixture of people who either did Anselm and Ireanus or Anselm and Kant (no one did irreducible complexity. Everyone know it but the question looked dirty).

    For Anselm was you supposed to mention Gaunilo as our teacher said if the question only specifies Anselm only mention Anselm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was expecting either plato or Humes critisisms on the cosmological argument or russell and copleston's debate. But anyway exam was good chose Anselm and Ireneus questions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nizmo786)
    The question specifically said Anselm. So you had to discuss both parts to his ontological argument in detail. You wont be marked on your answer on Descartes. Also you could have included Gauinillo's critisism of Anselms ideas and also write Anselms reply to him.
    Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dyl98an)
    Well f*** you ho3s. No one answered my question. "Like for real. Are you dumb. You know who mans are"
    And your question is......?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.
    damn i forgot to write about how it's analytic
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dyl98an)
    Well f*** you ho3s. No one answered my question. "Like for real. Are you dumb. You know who mans are"
    Whats ur question? I can answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise12307)
    Yes I definitely discussed both parts of the argument in detail. I also wrote about the argument itself being a priori, deductive and analytic. I thought about adding in the part with Gaunilo but decided that it was classed as evaluation, which isn't need in 25 markers. They only want knowledge - so I just went with a hunch and developed the answer with Descartes.
    Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nizmo786)
    Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.
    Interesting. Was it asked after 2010? I found a 2010 mark scheme which almost mirrors today's exam and it mentioned nothing about Gaunilo. It says about explaining both arguments, how the argument is analytic etc and some can also mention rationalism. However I don't claim to know it all, I imagine my paragraph on Descartes may well be discarded however I hope to scrape 1 or 2 marks for general extra knowledge!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nizmo786)
    Last time this question came on the exam, the mark scheme said candidates could mention Gaunilo and Anelms reply, as this comes under Anselms version of the ontological argument.
    You'd get marks for it so long as for the most part you mentioned Anselm and didn't spend the whole toe talking about Ganilo
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sianne4c)
    You'd get marks for it so long as for the most part you mentioned Anselm and didn't spend the whole toe talking about Ganilo
    Now just need to concentrate on Ethics. Got a week and a bit to go.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nihil_nimis)
    For the Iranaeus question would I loose marks for talking about Hick ?
    I highly doubt it as long as you explain Iraneus' theodicy then showed Hick as presenting a modern Iranean theodicy and... linked this back to the question that natural + moral evil is essentially for development it should get you more marks.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    I highly doubt it as long as you explain Iraneus' theodicy then showed Hick as presenting a modern Iranean theodicy and... linked this back to the question that natural + moral evil is essentially for development it should get you more marks.
    Alright good I think I did that, thank you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So for the Anselm question did you just have to write about the ontological argument? I just wrote his first part then gaunilos critisisms and then I wrote his second part of the argument .. What else should I of wrote ?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD
    i finished the booklet and needed more paper wrote aload of drivel
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maz A)
    The REAL question is how many pages of the booklet did you take up ?jks I did questions 1 and 3, its quite ironic I gave my teacher a couple of days before the exam essays on Kant's moral argument and the concept of Irreducible Complexity; both topics came up but I did neither xD
    What did you talk about for 1B?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.