Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.
For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].
You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.
Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.
For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].
You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.
Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.
For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].
You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.
Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:
Thank you for your notes , your notes have really helped me understand attributes of God much better. Do you have any of these for the DCT paper that’s if you do DCT ?
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.
For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].
You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.
Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:
Hey I just wanted to say thank you for your notes. The nature and attributes of God was a massive help. Do you have any these notes for DCT, assuming you do DCT and not Jewish thoughts?
Thank you for your notes , your notes have really helped me understand attributes of God much better. Do you have any of these for the DCT paper that’s if you do DCT ?
Note that although the advance info only mentions arguments based on observation (teleological & cosmological) you could technically get set a question which requires knowledge of the ontological argument too.
For example: Assess whether a priori or a posteriori is the more convincing type of argument [40 marks].
You would have to mention the a priori ontological argument to do well for that kind of question.
Here are links to my notes on the topics in the advance info:
I feel like a question including the ontological argument is less likely though because they probably won't ask a question that deviates away from what students have been revising. Still worth knowing for synoptic links and the unlikely chance it does come up but I don't think it's as probable as the other topic areas on Arguments from Observation.
I feel like a question including the ontological argument is less likely though because they probably won't ask a question that deviates away from what students have been revising. Still worth knowing for synoptic links and the unlikely chance it does come up but I don't think it's as probable as the other topic areas on Arguments from Observation.
An observation question which requires mentioning the ontological argument is certainly less likely to come up than an observation question which doesn't require mentioning the ontological argument. However, that is because there are far more types of questions on observation which don't require mentioning ontological than questions which do.
Basically the advice is to have an ontological argument paragraph prepared - maybe with Anselm and Kant's critique, in addition to your paragraphs on the teleological and cosmological arguments.
Does anyone have any good points abt a comparison of prime mover + form of good? Also are we meant to know abt Boethius and justice? We haven't done anything about that at all at school, but i've seen it mentioned? (Nature and attributes)
Does anyone have any good points abt a comparison of prime mover + form of good? Also are we meant to know abt Boethius and justice? We haven't done anything about that at all at school, but i've seen it mentioned? (Nature and attributes)
Does anyone know the specific definition of “Logical” and “Evidential” arguments? Like if I was to define it in an intro, how would I?
The Logical Problem of Evil is basically just it does not make sense that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient with the existence of evil. His omnipotence allows him the power to stop evil, his omniscience allows him to know exactly how to stop evil and his omnibenevolence would mean that he would want to stop evil out of his love for us. It does not logically make sense for him to be all three of these attributes with the existence of evil. I think it was created by Epiricus but it is a common criticism of both Augustine and Iranaeus' theories. The evidential argument is essentially just there is enough evidence of human and animal suffering that appears to serve no use or greater good to go against the existence of God, this was developed by William Rowe. I personally bring the evidential and logical PofE in when I am criticising the theories, it just makes it so much easier!