This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]

Reply 80

6

could someone please help me answer this question please?
"God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent." Discuss

Oooo I love this question

Boethius- eternal God
Anselm- Fourth dimensional God
Descartes- supremely perfect being- can do anything

vs
Swinburne- doesn't have fully divine foreknowledge but this does not limit his omnipotence.
'1995 is 1995'- God can only know what is known- argues in the biblical interpretation of God

Also add in arguments of freewill and why for some having divine foreknowledge would not mean he is benevolent- all philosophers above tackle this argument.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 81

333anon

10

Original post by mayland

Oooo I love this question
Boethius- eternal God
Anselm- Fourth dimensional God
Descartes- supremely perfect being- can do anything
vs
Swinburne- doesn't have fully divine foreknowledge but this does not limit his omnipotence.
'1995 is 1995'- God can only know what is known- argues in the biblical interpretation of God
Also add in arguments of freewill and why for some having divine foreknowledge would not mean he is benevolent- all philosophers above tackle this argument.

thank you so much

Reply 82

Bellahadid12

7

Guys for this question are my ideas cohesive
"Whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent God,without sufficient explanation"

Para 1: yes they do have sufficient explanation, Aquinas with his three ways all have the underlying belief in the rejection of infinite regress. Makes sense if there was such thing if infinite regress seems unplausible for things to start motion or start to exist contingently, makes sense for something to catalyse this be the unmoved mover etc... perfectly reasonable conclusion
Counter to para 1: J.L Mackie why can't infinity regression take place. Says that Aquinas is getting mixed up with long chain and infinitely long chain. Infinite regression is possible and it makes sense aka use hooks example. Is unnecessarily jumping to the conclusion of a transcendent God based on the unduly rejection of infinite regress
Eval: good point, almost trying to shove in God when not needed etc blab a bit about this and why it is convincing to say that I finite regression is possible and therefore Aquinas does make unnecessary jump.

Para 2: still good logic tho it makes sense to say that there must be something that acts as a catalyst. His logic is quite pragmatic. His idea is based in things we can observe and accept, things moving from one state to another, that effect requires a cause and that everything contingent being has a cause for it's existence etc. this is also strengthened by Aristotle's ideas of motion things moving from potentiality to actuality
Counter to para 2: Hume says that even if we accept the three ways it is a lapse in judgement to apply reason from things we are familiar with ( things within our reality ) that we know are caused by something else, moved by something else and then also apply that same rhetoric to something that we don't have the capacity to understand such as the universe. This leads us to unduly conclusions about universe which will eventually lead us to the false belief that it was the result of a transcendent God. This is a wrong application of a logic from things that we are familiar and know to things in which we are not
Eval: blab on about how this is sound, humans shud be aware of their lack on knowledge and understanding of reality. Further strengthened by Augustine's view on human logic tainted by original sin now broken cannot be used to come to the conclusion that God exists merely by using logic and applying to go observations we can see
Conclusion

Reply 83

groca12

11

if we got the question "god talk is meaningless", could we talk about 20th C. and the works of Aquinas and via negativa ?

Reply 84

Bellahadid12

7

Original post by groca12

if we got the question "god talk is meaningless", could we talk about 20th C. and the works of Aquinas and via negativa ?

I think I wud focus more on like the 20th century perspectives
Yes meaningless : verification/ falsification by flew
Not meaningless: Wittgenstein, Blik Hare and Basil Mitchel

Reply 85

mayland

6

Original post by 333anon

thank you so much

I think it's right- it's one of the questions I Think Therefore I Teach has predicted.

The only issue I'm having with it is I'm not fully sure if Swinburne would argue that divine foreknowledge= omniscience because he would say that omniscience is knowing everything that can't be known. But then I think he wouldn't believe in divine foreknowledge- only his omniscient argument. I think this is right anyway. My RS class and I was having a full discussion about this question yesterday haha! I hope Nature and Attributes of God comes up.

Reply 86

mayland

6

Original post by Bellahadid12

I think I wud focus more on like the 20th century perspectives
Yes meaningless : verification/ falsification by flew
Not meaningless: Wittgenstein, Blik Hare and Basil Mitchel

I think you could also bring in Aquinas and analogy and also via negative because that is all 'God talk' and use criticisms like i.e., Aquinas analogy of proportion still doesn't tackle how we talk/ understand God because it doesn't give us how much to etc- and if it's 'analogy' are we then still trying to compare humans and God to each other- likewise with the Via Negativa- i..e, Maimonides Ship analogy- what are we actually gaining by saying what God is not.

Reply 87

mayland

6

Original post by groca12

if we got the question "god talk is meaningless", could we talk about 20th C. and the works of Aquinas and via negativa ?

Yes I think you would talk about all religious language because this is not necessarily directed to 20th cen/ analogy/symbolic

Reply 88

mayland

6

Hello, how is everyone going to structure their paper on Monday? Does every do 3 sections or 2/4? I think I'm going to go for 3 sections on my first two and if im running out of time go for 2 on my last.
What does everyone else do?

Reply 89

groca12

11

Original post by mayland

Hello, how is everyone going to structure their paper on Monday? Does every do 3 sections or 2/4? I think I'm going to go for 3 sections on my first two and if im running out of time go for 2 on my last.
What does everyone else do?

What do you mean? We are only supposed to do three?

Reply 90

mayland

6

Original post by groca12

What do you mean? We are only supposed to do three?

I mean within the questions... yes I know we're only supposed to do 3 lol I mean sections wise within your question. i.e., if running out of time on the third.

Reply 91

groca12

11

Original post by mayland

I mean within the questions... yes I know we're only supposed to do 3 lol I mean sections wise within your question. i.e., if running out of time on the third.

oh right that makes more sense, sorry 😭
erm i think im gonna aim for 3 sections on all questions and force myself to move on at the 40min mark

Reply 92

Bellahadid12

7

Original post by mayland

Hello, how is everyone going to structure their paper on Monday? Does every do 3 sections or 2/4? I think I'm going to go for 3 sections on my first two and if im running out of time go for 2 on my last.
What does everyone else do?

I do 2 like sections but they are massive sections like look at the plan thing from before, but I'm not sure now if that's the best way but that's the only way I can get it done within the time and make sure I'm focused to the question....

Reply 93

shivom.j01

10

Original post by mayland

I think it's right- it's one of the questions I Think Therefore I Teach has predicted.
The only issue I'm having with it is I'm not fully sure if Swinburne would argue that divine foreknowledge= omniscience because he would say that omniscience is knowing everything that can't be known. But then I think he wouldn't believe in divine foreknowledge- only his omniscient argument. I think this is right anyway. My RS class and I was having a full discussion about this question yesterday haha! I hope Nature and Attributes of God comes up.

Yeah I’m pretty sure Swinburne wouldn’t agree that God can have both divine foreknowledge and be omnibenevolence, his approach would be to limit divine foreknowledge given that God experiences time unfolding moment by moment like us

I don’t want attributes of God 😭

Reply 94

emelianiloufar

14

for 1.5 religious experience how much do we need to know about each case study. for example if the question is on corporate religious experience i know the basics of each one but do i need to know like the specifics?

Reply 95

shivom.j01

10

Original post by emelianiloufar

for 1.5 religious experience how much do we need to know about each case study. for example if the question is on corporate religious experience i know the basics of each one but do i need to know like the specifics?

it would be nice to to have some examples for each- so obviously the Pentecost festival which is quite old but a recent one is of course the Toronto blessing- can provide detailed ao2 marks :smile:

Reply 96

surprising-allia

I’m really struggling with all of the key ao1 content for plato and aristotle in the first philosophy topic. I have no idea why as most of the other content seems to seem okay. Does anyone have any summary notes they’d be willing to post here please, mine keep confusing me even more! 😭

Reply 97

mayland

6

Original post by surprising-allia

I’m really struggling with all of the key ao1 content for plato and aristotle in the first philosophy topic. I have no idea why as most of the other content seems to seem okay. Does anyone have any summary notes they’d be willing to post here please, mine keep confusing me even more! 😭

Have you checked out Alevelphilosophyreligion? https://alevelphilosophyandreligion.com/ocr-religious-studies/
They are really good. And have summary/ full explanations- also I Think Therefore I Teach- I think she's great.

Reply 98

Joe312

17

Original post by 333anon

could someone please help me answer this question please?
"God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent." Discuss

Boethius posed the question which began this debate - he pointed out that if God is omniscient, that seems to involve having divine foreknowledge of our future action - but that undermines free will, and a lack of free will conflicts with God's omnibenvolence and justice when punishing us in the afterlife (since we can't deserve punishment if we have no free will).

Boethius, Anselm & Swinburne then tried to solve this conflict - so evaluate their attempts to do so.

Reply 99

tasha404

5

Is it wise to miss out on revising one topic? I'm struggling with some of them and there would be 4 options to answer so...

OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]

Related discussions

Articles for you