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

OCR AS Religious Studies: Philosophy and Ethics G571 & G572 - 18 & 25 May 2017 Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HungarianTamil)
    I put Irenaeus's soul making defence too as well as the afterlife defence and a counter for Anthony Flew. The arguments against were Anthony Flew, Dostoyevsky.

    I have no idea if my or your 10 marker for problem of evil is right at all. That's how unsure I am for the 10 marker
    1 HR 30 Mins is actually not enough. 😞😞 i could of put more but fair enough its done and dusted
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by helzbayy)
    the 10 mark for the teleological part
    'To what extent does the universe has a purpose is just an illusion'
    i spoke about Darwin's Natural Selection- long story short he says that universe does not need a designer or purpose and universe is a product of small changes from past that les to big changes. i said his argument is weak as it is not saying that it is an illusion but rather giving an alternative purpose to the Teleological Argument

    i used a bit of Mackie's idea on the Cosmological argument as he gives an example of a carriage and says there could be an infinite number of carriages but this is only possible if there is a railway engine meaning universe cannot exist out of nothing but must have something that caused universe to exist.

    i also used Hume's criticism of the teleological argument as he mentions that random order could lead to an orderliness rather than disorder and used analogy of ship, as it could be a product of generations of trial and error.

    concluded my point to say that universe must have a purpose.
    dunno how many marks i would get for this.
    i could of written more
    I talked about Epicurean Hypothesis, Paley's dismissal of "Law of Metallic nature", Darwinism and then my final point was on the failure to show the designer is God and not for example a team of designers. I said the universe doesn't have a purpose as a conclusion.

    If I get 5 out of 10 for this and say 20 on the 25 marker, and this is the same for both questions then I will be happy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    with the evaluation part, there is no right or wrong so in a way we both could be on right track.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HungarianTamil)
    Time was the biggest problem for me.

    I mean I realised after putting Paley and Aquinas into the 25 marker that I was behind and so couldn't put as much into the 10 Markers for Design. Hopefully my good knowledge of the 25 marker makes up for my average 10 marker. Same story for problem of evil.

    What did you guys put for moral evil? As in the 10 marker asking whether gods existence could be justified.
    I mainly focussed on how the problem of moral evil, whilst offering a challenge to it, couldn't definitively disprove the existence of God. I spoke about irenaeus and his theodicy using freewill mostly and how, even though freewill is a religious presupposition in this case, the existence of it can't be falsified, so therefore, it offers an unfalsifiable defence that would somewhat defend God's existence, therefore meaning that God's existence cannot be absolutely proven to be false.

    I also spoke about Augustine a little, but since I found Irenaeus to be the best defence when regarding moral evil I focussed primarily on that. Also I spoke a little bit (a sentence) on how Natural Evil creates the biggest problem for God, but then pointed out that since this was irrelevant, the theodicies still hold strong
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by helzbayy)
    the 10 mark for the teleological part
    'To what extent does the universe has a purpose is just an illusion'
    i spoke about Darwin's Natural Selection- long story short he says that universe does not need a designer or purpose and universe is a product of small changes from past that les to big changes. i said his argument is weak as it is not saying that it is an illusion but rather giving an alternative purpose to the Teleological Argument

    i used a bit of Mackie's idea on the Cosmological argument as he gives an example of a carriage and says there could be an infinite number of carriages but this is only possible if there is a railway engine meaning universe cannot exist out of nothing but must have something that caused universe to exist.

    i also used Hume's criticism of the teleological argument as he mentions that random order could lead to an orderliness rather than disorder and used analogy of ship, as it could be a product of generations of trial and error.

    concluded my point to say that universe must have a purpose.
    dunno how many marks i would get for this.
    i could of written more
    I started by briefly talking about aristotle's ideas of telos and then saying how it may be 'wishful' thinking

    And then I went on to talk about evolution, Dawkins' blind watchmaker and the fact that under Okham's Razor, this seems by far the simpler approach

    But it was so messy and rushed since I was so short on time:/:/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccabokka)
    I started by briefly talking about aristotle's ideas of telos and then saying how it may be 'wishful' thinking

    And then I went on to talk about evolution, Dawkins' blind watchmaker and the fact that under Okham's Razor, this seems by far the simpler approach

    But it was so messy and rushed since I was so short on time:/:/
    is it true that the mark sheme for 10 markers are vague as i put mackies eg of the infinite carriage but it requires a railway carriage so i linked it with universe to say that the universe must have a purpose. i mean would they consider it?
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    AS NEW SPEC PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS AND THEOLOGY! The Philosophy today was Cosmological yay and Problem of Evil whoop whoop. But er forgot to mention enough critics but oh well... Hopefully it'll be okay. Hopefully you all did well!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In the AS paper lmao
    (Original post by thefreakoffreaks)
    Where was the cosmological argument urgggggggg I was soo annoyed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophtheelf)
    AS NEW SPEC PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS AND THEOLOGY! The Philosophy today was Cosmological yay and Problem of Evil whoop whoop. But er forgot to mention enough critics but oh well... Hopefully it'll be okay. Hopefully you all did well!
    Yea same. I'm pleased with the questions though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeoZango)
    In the AS paper lmao
    I was confused with that question....It was alongside God as craftsman or creator and I literally avoided that topic.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone do Kant and the philosophical problem questions ???? Or is it only me?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leah06)
    I wrote cosmological too, surely they'll mark both as right?
    I mean I hope so, the question was phrased in such a way that it seemed that was the answer but I've also read the latter so I guess it could be. OCR really ****ed us over this year.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeoZango)
    In the AS paper lmao
    This was the new spec no? We're talking about the old spec, it wasn't explicit
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    guys this is the old spec dont worry as new spec would be starting sep 2017
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The exam was good overall, if only we had more time to write our answers, For the first question i just mixed cosmological argument and God the creator but the 10 markers for both question 1 & 2, were horrible, if only l had more time to develop the answers they would have made more sense.

    Now we are left with the Ethics paper, I don't know whats going to come up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the part A 'Creation from nothing'
    what were we supposed to include/ what did anyone write
    i wrote mostly about God as a creator in general after explaining creatio eh nihilo
    is that okay?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by helzbayy)
    is it true that the mark sheme for 10 markers are vague as i put mackies eg of the infinite carriage but it requires a railway carriage so i linked it with universe to say that the universe must have a purpose. i mean would they consider it?
    Tbh I don't know the example, so I'll look it up and let you know
    But normally yeah, so long as you link what your arguing to the question, and maintain a consistent argument, it should be fine
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beccabokka)
    Tbh I don't know the example, so I'll look it up and let you know
    But normally yeah, so long as you link what your arguing to the question, and maintain a consistent argument, it should be fine
    i think i actually made a good link but then i really hope they consider it. thanks alot 😊
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeoZango)
    Yea same. I'm pleased with the questions though.
    SAME! I was so happy! Do you think the mark scheme will be low because it's a new syllabus?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have the AS ethics questions from last year (June 2016). Got my ethics retake on Thursday
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.