2. 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

3. The correct definitions for the characteristics of God 1.EternalA. God cares for each of us 2. ImmanentB. God is all-powerful, able to do anything 3. LovingC. God is beyond, outside of his creation 4. OmnipotentD. God is everywhere at the same time 5. OmnipresentE. God is not limited by a physical body 6. OmniscientF. God is very close, within his creation 7.PersonalG. God knows each of us as individuals 8. SpiritH. God knows everything, past, present and future 9. TranscendentI. God was not born and will not die 1I 2F 3A 4B 5D 6H 7G 8E 9C

4. Which black rectangle is bigger? How many black dots are there? Are all the circles stationary?

5. 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.

6. 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!

7. 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! If we can only ever experience perceptions of objects (what Locke would called secondary qualities), who is to say that they actually exist? Is it all in the mind or is there a reality out there?

8. 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.

9. 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!