Docstoc

Mr Winter Evidence Pack Hinchingbrooke

Document Sample
Mr Winter Evidence Pack Hinchingbrooke Powered By Docstoc
					The answer really annoys me for 3 reasons:
1. I think the statement is arrogant. It doesn’t
    take into account any definitions of God but
    solely focuses on what the human can and
    can’t do.
2. The statement assumes human knowledge is
    always correct. The statement suggests if I
    see something it exists exactly how I see it. So
    if it is not visible it therefore doesn’t exist!!
3. The statement assumes that simply because I
    cannot use my senses to check something
    exists it therefore cannot exist
  The correct definitions for the characteristics of God
1. Eternal                               A. God cares for each of us
2. Immanent               B. God is all-powerful, able to do anything
3. Loving                  C. God is beyond, outside of his creation
4. Omnipotent                D. God is everywhere at the same time
5. Omnipresent               E. God is not limited by a physical body
6. Omniscient                F. God is very close, within his creation
7 .Personal                  G. God knows each of us as individuals
8. Spirit               H. God knows everything, past, present and
                                                              future
9. Transcendent                 I. God was not born and will not die

                  1I 2F 3A 4B 5D 6H 7G 8E 9C
How many
 black dots
are there?
Are all the
   circles
stationary?

              Which black
              rectangle is
                bigger?
If we differ on what we see does that
mean we automatically reject what the
other person says? Because of Exhibits
B, C & D we have to ask ‘are we all
seeing the same thing?’ because it is
possible that we might not be because
our observations may be limited.

If we are seeing different things we
have to be critical and check what
evidence we are using to build up a
picture of the world. We have to go on
the most reliable evidence. This does
not mean the answer has been proved
because the evidence may change! This
means we have to use different sources
to get an answer.
  Perception is the term for how we see the world. One of the questions philosophers have
  to tackle is ‘Do humans see exactly what is there?’ There are several ways of answering
  this question.
                                         This process is called realism. This says humans see exactly
                                         what is there. There is no change between what a human
                                         sees and what is out there in the real world.
                                         Good idea?
                                         It seems to be a good idea as it means what I see is
                                         connected with the real world!

Problems:
• There seems to be no way of distinguishing between truth and
  illusion. In other words, whether I am looking at a real person, or
  just an illusion (caused by sensory mistake, hallucination, etc.),
  there is no way I can tell them apart.
• So I would not be able to work out perspective. I would have to
  assume if one thing looked smaller it actually was smaller, rather
  than further away!
• Also if I looked at a table and someone turned the light in the
  room off, I would have to assume that the table had changed
  colour because when I looked at it, it was a different colour!
  Perception is the term for how we see the world. One of the questions philosophers have
  to tackle is ‘Do humans see exactly what is there?’ There are several ways of answering
  this question.                   This process is called representational realism. This view
                                     argues that we experience reality indirectly by
                                     perceptions that represent the real world. So, if we see a
                                     brown table, what we are actually seeing is not the table
                                     itself but a representation of it. In this way, differences of
                                     perception which occur due to changes in light conditions,
                                     position of viewer, etc., can be easily explained: it is not
                                     the object which is changing, only the perception of it.

Good idea? Problems?
• It seems to be good because it means that we can talk
  about how our perception or view changes rather than
  the object necessarily changing. This lets us explain
  perspective or changes in light rather than changes in the
  size or colour of the object.
• However, it is difficult to clearly define what the object is
  and what the perception is!
                                                                      Is it all in the mind or is
• If we can only ever experience perceptions of objects
                                                                     there a reality out there?
  (what Locke would called secondary qualities), who is to
  say that they actually exist?
                                        Humans have limited knowledge – We cannot and do not know
                                                                everything...
                                       A few examples of how our knowledge can be limited are:

                                       •   Our experiences and what we have done in the past
                                       •   Our culture
                                       •   Our current knowledge
                                       •   Our ability to reason and think
                                       •   What information we have available to us

                                       Below is an example of someone who changed and extended
                                       human knowledge. Notice how something (gravity) was able to
                                       exist without us knowing about it or fully understanding it.


Isaac Newton explained the workings of the universe through mathematics.
He formulated laws of motion and gravitation. These laws are math
formulas that explain how objects move when a force acts on them.

He described his idea, or theory, about gravity. Gravity is the force that
causes things to fall down. If a pencil falls off a desk, it will land on the floor,
not the ceiling. In his book Isaac also used his laws to show that the planets
revolve around the suns in orbits that are oval, not round.
Margaret Archer says that it is
wrong to assume that something
doesn’t exist simply because we
don’t know about it.

She calls it an epistemic fallacy
where       limitation     doesn’t
necessarily mean non existence...

So just because I don’t know if God
does exist doesn’t mean God cannot
exist. God may or may not exist but
not knowing whether he does or not
doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist!

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:12/10/2012
language:Unknown
pages:9