Thank you so much for this video! I was a bit confused with cosmological argument (despite everyone saying its the easiest topic) but I understand it a lot better with your video!! Also I bought your AS revision pack! Super helpful and I've recommended them to my classmates!
Pleased I can help...even if it is the day before. At least my videos can maybe help for ethics and DCT. I hope your exam goes really well in morning :)
Thank you so much Ms! Please can you explain the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacy of composition? It will be much appreciated if you can give an example of both. Thank you very much.
Hi Adeola, a logical fallacy is the same as a fallacy both mean that an error in logic has occurred to draw a wrong conclusion. Fallacy of composition specifically refers to someone inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. So in Aquinas' case just because motion or c/e are true by the examples in the world does not mean the universe as a whole works in the same way. Hope this makes sense :)
Hello! Thanks so much for these great videos, they really help me and my classmates. When you say that we can’t just say this is supported by and we have to be evaluative, how would you recommend doing this? I usually resort to “this is a strong argument as it is logical and has face validity” but I feel that is a bit too basic and was wondering how you would be evaluative on some of these points? Thankyou again!
Great question! Have you checked out the blog as lots on there on how to evaluate. But main points i recommend is to use critical words e.g effective or useful and justify why a point adds to your line of argument (either by supporting it or going against). Think of it like being a lawyer in court, you are just presenting both sides but always trying to justify why one side is stronger than the other. Hope that makes sense and I'm pleased you like the videos :)
Hello! Thank you for the video, it was really helpful. I was just wondering if you could explain Russells argument more thoroughly? I am unsure as to whether he supports Aquinas, or Humes criticisms of Aquinas. Thank you!
Hi, thank you for your question. Russell is supporting Hume's criticism. Aquinas is basically arguing that we can use things that happen in this world as evidence of a creator God. So because we experience cause and effect and motion there must be a creator God who set it all in motion/ first cause and that is God. Russell is trying to disarm this logic by saying that you cannot leap from one example (cause and effect) to the whole (whole universe in cause and effect started by God) because it is like arguing 'just because every man has a mother does not the whole human race has a mother'. You cannot go from small examples to the example as a whole. Hope this helps :)
Hi again Ms, just a quick question- why does Aristole four causes propose that the final cause is God, whereas for Aquinas God is the efficient cause. Its a bit confusing. Can you please explain? Thank you in advance
Hi, make sure you call Airstole's 'God' the Prime Mover as the final cause as 'God' could imply Christian. Where are you talking about God as efficient for Aquinas? You don't have to link Aquinas in with Aristotle topic and Cosmo doesn't really focus on efficient cause :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you for your reply. In an essay examplar I found. It says 'Aquinas first way was inspired by Aristotle's four causes, particularly the efficient cause, the efficient cause of something is the agent that moves it from a state of potentiality to actuality. Since nothing can move itself, there has to be an unmoved mover, who started the chain of movement. Aristole called this the prime mover. Aquinas took this further and said the prime mover is what people call God.
Really pleased my videos are helping :) Leibniz can be used to question the start of the universe, so whilst his argument doe snot directly support 'God' it does imply that more is needed in the cause than the effect. In this case, the effect is what we are living (something happened for us to be here) so there has to be a bigge, greater explanation to how this effect happened - this could be God. Hope this helps :)
thank you so much! please could you do a short video distinguishing between the criticisms for the teleological and cosmological to help me not get confused? also, are Hume and Russell criticisms very similar? if so how come? Thank you for all you help I really appreciate it!!!
Hi Alex, you are very welcome :) I will certainly try do a video on the criticisms but I have a pretty long list of videos to do at the moment and not enough time 😂 I would say that Russell's point about the mother could support Hume's 1st cricisms but I would say the analytic and synthetic argument is quite different. If you see a link between them that is great to draw upon in an essay. Hume came a long time before Russell so maybe he read his work or was inspired by it :)
Second cause focuses on cause and effect, so everything that has an effect must be caused by something. We can see effects in the world (the world is also an effect itself) so must have causes. The cause for the world/universe is God. The third way is contingency (things rely on other things for existence, I rely on air to exist) so there must be something that is seperate from this (as contingency cannot go back infinitely) this being must be 'necessary' =God :)
Thank you so much for this video, do you also recommend using websites such as the a level philosophy and religion website to gain more A02 Criticisms?
Hi Milly, I think evolution is a real possibility for this year's exam. They could ask one specifically on cosmological but I think if they were going to ask it the exam board will keep the Q open for both cosmo and teleo e.g 'The challenge of evolution out weighs the evidence proving the existence of God.' Discuss. Hope this helps :)
Hello, your videos are so helpful! I was just wondering where you would recommend looking to find scholars/wider reading that not everyone will have in their essays to get the top grades. Thank you, grace (:
Hi Grace, for top grades synoptic links are also highly recommended, having a really good grasp of who the philosophers are as a whole. Examiners like students to represent a holistic view of content even with the updated exam changes for 2022. For your research I would just stick with Google, there is an abundance for the philosophers and theories so don't worry about finding different things as doing wider research in itself will set you ahead. If you can get hold of the original books e.g Summa Theologica have a glance through to find different quotes, chapter references etc this is also a good way to find ideas too. Good luck with your revision :)
HI! this was a very helpful video! I was wondering if I was able to use evolution as an example for Humes 2nd criticism? Where not everything has a cause, in example a mutation in an animals cell is caused quite randomly causing them to evolve. Thank youuu
That is very clever Ruth and I think if you use suggestive language e.g one possible example to support Hume's criticism is evolution. This is because...you are just suggesting the link rather than stating it as a fact :)
Hi Hena, great question. For good quotes, a bit of research on Google does the trick as you want a quote you can connect with and explore so any to do with infinity, cosmos, universe work really well :)
Hi Elliot, my understanding from the advanced info is that Ontological will not be asked on its own. However they might ask a compare a posteriori vs a priori in which case knowing some Ontological could help. Depending on the wording of the question this could also I clue a comparison between the approaches of Plato vs Aristotle but to be on the safe side I would recap Ontological aswell :)
Hi Callum, I think it is wise going over the Ontological argument, just in case you get a question that asks you to compare a posteriori vs a priori arguments :)
Great question. I would say that the universe is contingent as it relies upon other things for its existence and continuation such as energy (steady state theory). However as I'm not a physicist I might be completely wrong about that. The concept of our universe is very interesting but immensely complex too :)
Hi, I wanted to ask, based on the advanced info could a queation come up asking to compare apriori and aposteriori arguments meaning we will have to make reference to argmetns based on reason or would they not do that as its not mentioned, only arguments based on observation is Thank you
Hi, yes it could as it is mentioned in the spec under these topics. My advice is know Ontological as far as it is a priori so you can use as a comparison/evaluative judgement :)
Thank you so much for this video! I was a bit confused with cosmological argument (despite everyone saying its the easiest topic) but I understand it a lot better with your video!! Also I bought your AS revision pack! Super helpful and I've recommended them to my classmates!
Also could I ue the falsfication principle/verification principle to critique this argument?
That's great, I'm so pleased my video helped clarify the argument. Good luck tomorrow 😀
@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you!!
Brilliant explanation, so clear i wish I found you sooner i have my exams tomorrow sigh!!
Pleased I can help...even if it is the day before. At least my videos can maybe help for ethics and DCT. I hope your exam goes really well in morning :)
thanks so much for these rs videos I really need them for revision
Really pleased the videos are helping your revision :)
Thank you so much Ms! Please can you explain the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacy of composition? It will be much appreciated if you can give an example of both. Thank you very much.
Hi Adeola, a logical fallacy is the same as a fallacy both mean that an error in logic has occurred to draw a wrong conclusion. Fallacy of composition specifically refers to someone inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. So in Aquinas' case just because motion or c/e are true by the examples in the world does not mean the universe as a whole works in the same way. Hope this makes sense :)
Oh yeahh. I get it now. Thank you so much
Hello! Thanks so much for these great videos, they really help me and my classmates. When you say that we can’t just say this is supported by and we have to be evaluative, how would you recommend doing this? I usually resort to “this is a strong argument as it is logical and has face validity” but I feel that is a bit too basic and was wondering how you would be evaluative on some of these points? Thankyou again!
Great question! Have you checked out the blog as lots on there on how to evaluate. But main points i recommend is to use critical words e.g effective or useful and justify why a point adds to your line of argument (either by supporting it or going against). Think of it like being a lawyer in court, you are just presenting both sides but always trying to justify why one side is stronger than the other. Hope that makes sense and I'm pleased you like the videos :)
Hello! Thank you for the video, it was really helpful. I was just wondering if you could explain Russells argument more thoroughly? I am unsure as to whether he supports Aquinas, or Humes criticisms of Aquinas. Thank you!
Hi, thank you for your question. Russell is supporting Hume's criticism. Aquinas is basically arguing that we can use things that happen in this world as evidence of a creator God. So because we experience cause and effect and motion there must be a creator God who set it all in motion/ first cause and that is God. Russell is trying to disarm this logic by saying that you cannot leap from one example (cause and effect) to the whole (whole universe in cause and effect started by God) because it is like arguing 'just because every man has a mother does not the whole human race has a mother'. You cannot go from small examples to the example as a whole. Hope this helps :)
Hi again Ms, just a quick question- why does Aristole four causes propose that the final cause is God, whereas for Aquinas God is the efficient cause. Its a bit confusing. Can you please explain? Thank you in advance
Hi, make sure you call Airstole's 'God' the Prime Mover as the final cause as 'God' could imply Christian. Where are you talking about God as efficient for Aquinas? You don't have to link Aquinas in with Aristotle topic and Cosmo doesn't really focus on efficient cause :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you for your reply. In an essay examplar I found. It says 'Aquinas first way was inspired by Aristotle's four causes, particularly the efficient cause, the efficient cause of something is the agent that moves it from a state of potentiality to actuality. Since nothing can move itself, there has to be an unmoved mover, who started the chain of movement. Aristole called this the prime mover. Aquinas took this further and said the prime mover is what people call God.
Hii there! thanks a lot for your great videos, Im kind of confused about Leibnez's argument, Im not really sure how it linkss to cosmological
Really pleased my videos are helping :) Leibniz can be used to question the start of the universe, so whilst his argument doe snot directly support 'God' it does imply that more is needed in the cause than the effect. In this case, the effect is what we are living (something happened for us to be here) so there has to be a bigge, greater explanation to how this effect happened - this could be God. Hope this helps :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeachtysm 😊
class video thank you
You are very welcome, pleased it helped :)
thank you so much!
please could you do a short video distinguishing between the criticisms for the teleological and cosmological to help me not get confused?
also, are Hume and Russell criticisms very similar? if so how come?
Thank you for all you help I really appreciate it!!!
Hi Alex, you are very welcome :) I will certainly try do a video on the criticisms but I have a pretty long list of videos to do at the moment and not enough time 😂
I would say that Russell's point about the mother could support Hume's 1st cricisms but I would say the analytic and synthetic argument is quite different. If you see a link between them that is great to draw upon in an essay. Hume came a long time before Russell so maybe he read his work or was inspired by it :)
Thank you this is really useful- but I'm still kind of confused by the difference between the second and third cause?
Second cause focuses on cause and effect, so everything that has an effect must be caused by something. We can see effects in the world (the world is also an effect itself) so must have causes. The cause for the world/universe is God. The third way is contingency (things rely on other things for existence, I rely on air to exist) so there must be something that is seperate from this (as contingency cannot go back infinitely) this being must be 'necessary' =God :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach thank you so much!
Thank you so much for this video, do you also recommend using websites such as the a level philosophy and religion website to gain more A02 Criticisms?
Absolutely, any wider research you can do using websites, text books or original texts will help you achieve higher marks :)
Thank you !🥰@@IThinkThereforeITeach
Could they ask the challenge of evolution specifically against cosmological?
Hi Milly, I think evolution is a real possibility for this year's exam. They could ask one specifically on cosmological but I think if they were going to ask it the exam board will keep the Q open for both cosmo and teleo e.g 'The challenge of evolution out weighs the evidence proving the existence of God.' Discuss. Hope this helps :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach cool thank you! :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach therefore, should you respond with both cosmo and teleological or can you just do one of them?
Hello, your videos are so helpful! I was just wondering where you would recommend looking to find scholars/wider reading that not everyone will have in their essays to get the top grades. Thank you, grace (:
Hi Grace, for top grades synoptic links are also highly recommended, having a really good grasp of who the philosophers are as a whole. Examiners like students to represent a holistic view of content even with the updated exam changes for 2022. For your research I would just stick with Google, there is an abundance for the philosophers and theories so don't worry about finding different things as doing wider research in itself will set you ahead. If you can get hold of the original books e.g Summa Theologica have a glance through to find different quotes, chapter references etc this is also a good way to find ideas too. Good luck with your revision :)
HI! this was a very helpful video! I was wondering if I was able to use evolution as an example for Humes 2nd criticism? Where not everything has a cause, in example a mutation in an animals cell is caused quite randomly causing them to evolve.
Thank youuu
That is very clever Ruth and I think if you use suggestive language e.g one possible example to support Hume's criticism is evolution. This is because...you are just suggesting the link rather than stating it as a fact :)
what would be a good quote to put in the introduction of cosmo essay? :)
Hi Hena, great question. For good quotes, a bit of research on Google does the trick as you want a quote you can connect with and explore so any to do with infinity, cosmos, universe work really well :)
good video thanks, is it p?hat the ontological argument could come up despite not being directly named in question?
Hi Elliot, my understanding from the advanced info is that Ontological will not be asked on its own. However they might ask a compare a posteriori vs a priori in which case knowing some Ontological could help. Depending on the wording of the question this could also I clue a comparison between the approaches of Plato vs Aristotle but to be on the safe side I would recap Ontological aswell :)
Hi, great video! Do you think that we will need to know arguments based on reason for this years exam, thanks
Hi Callum, I think it is wise going over the Ontological argument, just in case you get a question that asks you to compare a posteriori vs a priori arguments :)
Do you think our universe is contingent or it's necessary?
Great question. I would say that the universe is contingent as it relies upon other things for its existence and continuation such as energy (steady state theory). However as I'm not a physicist I might be completely wrong about that. The concept of our universe is very interesting but immensely complex too :)
Hi, I wanted to ask, based on the advanced info could a queation come up asking to compare apriori and aposteriori arguments meaning we will have to make reference to argmetns based on reason or would they not do that as its not mentioned, only arguments based on observation is
Thank you
Hi, yes it could as it is mentioned in the spec under these topics. My advice is know Ontological as far as it is a priori so you can use as a comparison/evaluative judgement :)
@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you
youre quite literally a BABE, thank you so much
You are very welcome :)
This is great! Any chance you could do a similar one for ontological? Thanks!
Hi, yes Ontological is on the list for my up-coming videos so stay tuned 😁
Can you do one about teleological arguments
Hi, there should be a video on Teleological too :)
I Think Therefore I Teach Oh I just watched it thanks a lot
An ‘uncaused cause’…so obviously fallacious.
One could definitely argue that :)