S17 E7: The One About GCSE RS Paper 2 Theme C - God and Revelation

In this episode I will unpack; 

3.2.1.3 Theme C: The existence of God and revelation

Philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God

• The Design argument, including its strengths and weaknesses.
• The First Cause argument, including its strengths and weaknesses.
• The argument from miracles, including its strengths and weaknesses, and one example of a miracle.
• Evil and suffering as an argument against the existence of God.
• Arguments based on science against the existence of God.

The nature of the divine and revelation

• Special revelation as a source of knowledge about the divine (God, gods or ultimate reality) including visions and one example of a vision.
• Enlightenment as a source of knowledge about the divine.
• General revelation: nature and scripture as a way of understanding the divine.
• Different ideas about the divine that come from these sources:
  • omnipotent and omniscient
  • personal and impersonal
  • immanent and transcendent.
• The value of general and special revelation and enlightenment as sources of knowledge about the divine, including:
  • the problems of different ideas about the divine arising from these experiences
  • alternative explanations for the experiences, and the possibility that the people who claimed to have them were lying or mistaken.

https://www.lourdes-france.com/en/antonietta-raco-72nd-lourdes-miracle/

Explain two different beliefs in contemporary British society about visions. In your answer you should refer to the main religious tradition of Great Britain and non-religious beliefs.

Most Christians believe visions are a valid way that God reveals truth to his people.

This is because there is evidence of visions in the Bible for example when Mary saw a vision of an angel who told her she would give birth to Jesus

However, most non-religious people do not think visions are a valid way of understanding what is true

This is because there is no proof of that vision happening and the person's account may be unreliable

Explain two religious beliefs about miracles. Refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief and teaching in your answer.

One Christian belief is that miracles demonstrate God’s omnipotence which means he is all powerful.

This is because only an all powerful God could perform miracles

An example of a miracle that shows God’s power is the resurrection of Jesus in the Bible

This shows the miracle of Jesus coming back to life after death which could only be done though the power of God

Another belief is that miracles show God’s omnibenevolence which means he is all loving

This is because an all loving God would want to heal people as an expression of that love.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This episode of the Army Podcast is sponsored by Reimagining Education, an organisation dedicated to making learning inspiring, relevant, and future focused. Just like this podcast, they're passionate about exploring life's big questions and helping both students and teachers thrive. Find out more at reimaginingeducation.uk. A huge thank you to Reimagining Education for supporting the podcast. Welcome to the RE Podcast, the first dedicated RE podcast for students and teachers. My name is Louisa Jane Smith and this is the R.E. Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it is, and I'll prove it to you. Now, what I wanted to do was create a series of episodes to help students revise for their GCSE RE exam. These episodes can be used with year 10 or year 11 to revise topics, prepare for their mocks, or support revision for the final exams which are coming up soon. It might even be helpful for teachers who are new to teaching GCSE RE or need a refresher to give them an overview of the main concepts and exam skills. I am going to focus on AQA as this is what most people use, and I'm going to use Christianity as my religion as this is the one that everyone has to do. I've completed episodes on all of paper one in the last series, and now I'm doing paper two. I've already done a general introduction to paper two, plus the first two themes, so theme A, Marriage in the Family, and theme B, Religion and Life. Remember there are six themes in paper two, but you only need to learn four for the exam, so check which four you are doing and only listen to the relevant episodes. This episode is on theme C: The existence of God and revelation. Now this is very distinct from the other themes as it's much more philosophical rather than ethical. And it's probably the most challenging unit and therefore not the most popular one. But those who study it say it is their favourite. Now in this theme, students should study religious teachings and religious and philosophical arguments relating to the issues that follow, and their impact and influence in the modern world. They should be aware of contrasting perspectives in contemporary British society on all of these issues. They must be able to explain contrasting beliefs on the following three issues with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain, Christianity, and non-religious beliefs such as atheism and humanism. So visions, miracles, and nature as general revelation. So these are the three special topics for this unit, but as it's quite a complex unit, I'm going to move through it according to the spec and do these in context, but I will clearly distinguish them as our special topics when we get to them. So there are two main areas in theme C: philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God and the nature of the divine and revelation. So let's start with philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. The first argument on the spec is the design argument, but I think it makes sense to teach the argument from cause first as it comes first chronologically. However, it is probably slightly more tricky to understand than the design argument. So, teachers, you should take this into consideration before deciding which order to teach it to your students. So on the specification, it says we have to know the first cause argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. So let's consider what we know. We know that the universe exists, but we also know that it hasn't always existed. So there has to have been a time when the universe didn't exist. So therefore something must have happened to cause it to come into existence. But what or who? Well, let's consider this question for a moment. If everything that exists must have been caused by something else, at some point there has to be something which is the first cause that itself has no cause. God is an eternal being, therefore has no cause, therefore God caused everything else, therefore God must exist. Now these were the thoughts of Aristotle back in the fourth century. You don't need to know that for the exam, but sometimes it's kind of helpful to know who said it and when. So Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, so he's that Catholic monk that came up with the just war theory. Well, he developed the argument from first cause a little bit more. He thought that the universe is proof that God exists. His basic argument is that the universe needs a cause and God is the only thing that is able to be the cause of the universe. And why did he think this, you ask? First of all, the cause of the universe has to be outside time, because it had to have started time. You can't start time unless you existed before time. And if you exist before time, you must be an eternal being. If your head is getting a little bit muddled, then do this. Take an oblong object like a phone or a pen or a ruler or TV remote. Hold it out in one hand in front of you. With your empty hand, point to one end of the object, that is the beginning of time. Then point to the other end, that is the end of time. God is where you are currently standing outside of time, so has no beginning or end. Blows your mind, doesn't it? So God is infinite and cause time to exist, and God is also all powerful, another helpful quality if you're going to create a universe. So God does seem to have some necessary qualities with which to create a universe. Aquinas suggests that God is the only one who could be the cause of the universe and so must exist. Another dude, he's called Mackie, but you don't have to know that. He used the analogy of a train. Each carriage in a train is pulled by the carriage in front of it. But there has to be a first carriage with an engine and a driver that pulls the subsequent carriages along. So what do you need to know? Everything which exists needs a cause. The universe exists, so it needs a cause. The cause would have to be outside time and all powerful. God is outside time and all powerful, therefore God is the cause of the universe, therefore God exists. So what are the strengths of this argument? Well, first of all, it is consistent with what the Bible says. If we look at the Bible, we can see there is evidence of the first cause argument. In Genesis 1, verse 1, a key quote you must know for your exam off my heart, it says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Also, we know that one of the qualities of God that Christians believe in is that God is all-powerful. So this argument supports this belief as only an all-powerful being could cause the world to come into existence from nothing. So this is a good reason why the universe exists and it explains what caused it. But I know what you're thinking. You are thinking that it doesn't have to be God that caused the universe. You are right. This is one of the weaknesses of the argument. It could be the Big Bang. In fact, it is arguably more likely to be the Big Bang as there is scientific evidence for it, and there is no scientific evidence for God. Okay, well let's explore that for a minute. Before we go on, let's make sure you fully understand what the Big Bang is. First of all, it is a theory. It is not a scientific fact. Yes, it has got evidence which makes it our best theory yet, but we cannot reenact it and watch it happen like we can watch water boil at 100 degrees. So therefore it remains a theory. More about the evidence of the Big Bang in a bit, but first, what exactly is it? Some people mistakenly think it is an explosion in space, as if space existed and the Big Bang happened within that space. But actually something much more profound than that happened. The Big Bang created space and time. Space and time did not exist, then the Big Bang happened and it created space, time, matter, and all the energy that exists in the universe. But what caused the Big Bang? Honestly, scientists have very little idea. Some think that there was a universe before us that collapsed and we emerged from that collapsed universe. There are some theories about black holes, but as we didn't observe it, no one really knows. So what is the evidence for the Big Bang? Well, most obviously it is that the universe is still expanding, like a balloon that's being blown up, but at the speed of 80 kilometers per second or about 150,000 miles per hour. I know, right? Ever wondered what it is expanding into? That question really freaks me out. How do we know it is expanding? Well, there is this massive telescope called the Hubble Telescope, named after its inventor, Edwin Hubble. Well, it can measure the distance between objects in space and can observe that they are moving away from each other. The other piece of evidence for the Big Bang is red shift. This is only created when galaxies are moving away from each other. There is also something called cosmic wave radiation, essentially energy left over from the Big Bang that's still causing the expansion. Also, the amount of helium and hydrogen that exists tells us how fast the universe is expanding. There'd be more or less if the Earth was expanding at a different rate. But here's a question. While we have evidence of the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang? What caused that dense hot space that expanded into our universe, our solar system, our planet, and eventually the complex organism that is human? Some people think God caused the Big Bang. I mean, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I mean, what does it say in the Bible that God created first? Let there be light. Could this be a simple way of explaining the Big Bang? One of the first things the Big Bang created after around 10 seconds were photons, light particles. So maybe. Liberal Christians have no problem whatsoever in considering that the Big Bang happened. The significant thing is that God created the world. How he did this isn't important. The Bible isn't always meant to be literal. I mean if it was, then Christians would be gouging their eyes out every time they looked lustfully at somebody, as this is what Jesus told them to do. But there are literal Christians who believe the whole of the Bible is the literal word of God and cannot be interpreted. So if the Bible doesn't mention a Big Bang, then a Big Bang didn't happen. You can understand this. The Bible isn't the literal word of God, then anyone could start interpreting it any way they wanted, and the whole of Christianity would fall apart. Maybe Jesus didn't exist or didn't die for us or didn't rise again. Maybe there isn't a God, it's just a metaphor. So let's get back to the first cause theory. Either God is the first cause and caused the world, or it was the Big Bang, or God caused the Big Bang. All are plausible, but only two prove the existence of God. If we are looking at non-religious interpretations of the first cause theory, they will say that there is no evidence that God caused the Big Bang, that science has evidence for the Big Bang, and therefore the Big Bang is the first cause of the universe. The second argument we need to explore is the design argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Very simply, the design argument for the existence of God is that the world looks designed, so there must be a designer, and that designer must be God, so therefore God exists. Let's break this down. While very early philosophers like Plato observed order in nature and suggested an intelligent designer, the argument is usually associated with William Paley. So William Paley was alive in the 18th century, and he compared the design of the universe to the design in a watch. He argued, imagine you're walking on a moor, which is kind of a grassy area, and found a watch lying on the grass and saw how complicated it was, you would have to assume that someone made it. By looking at the watch, you would see that all the coils, springs, and movements all work together so that the watch is able to keep time. Anyone who found this watch, having never seen a watch before, would have to conclude that someone designed it for it to fulfil its purpose of keeping time. Paley compared this to the design of the world. He argued that just as someone who found the watch could conclude that it was made by someone because of its design, someone who looks at the universe must conclude that there is a designer because of how the universe has been designed. Let's now consider some examples of design in nature. If the Earth was one millimeter closer to the Sun, it would be too hot to sustain life. If it was one millimeter further away, it would be too cold. The Earth is the exact distance from the Sun to sustain life. And not only that, it is perfectly positioned so that when the Moon gets in between the Earth and the Sun, we get a perfect solar eclipse. Everything on the Earth is perfectly balanced. Gravity, chemical formula of the air, trees take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. The Earth is uniquely placed in the solar system so that it can support life. Not only that, but sunsets, newborn babies, skin, and kittens are all beautiful too. The chance that conditions would be right for human life is about one in 700 quadrillion, that's seven with 20 zeros. This is sometimes known as the teleological argument. Telios means purpose, so it's not just about design and things looking good, it is also that each thing in nature has a purpose and works together. And that purpose is to support life, specifically human life. So that designer must be something that wants humans to exist and survive and is able to create a complex world where this happens. Therefore, it must be God. Before Pale, though, Thomas Aquinas also put forward an argument from design. He suggested purpose and complexity in the natural world points to an intelligent creator, God. This was his fifth of five ways which suggest God exists. The first three are about cause, something must have caused the world, and the fourth was about there being degrees of goodness, so there must be a perfectly good being. Aquinas observed that there is order in the universe and it follows laws. As nature isn't intelligent, it can't create these laws and patterns and decide to follow them. As such, there must be an intelligence outside of nature that designed nature to do these things. He used the analogy of an arrow. You can see how important analogy is to this argument. An arrow doesn't decide to move towards the bullseye. The intelligent, skilled archer guides it there. Therefore, there is an intelligent designer of the universe which we call God. Therefore, God exists. One of the strengths of this argument is that it has its basis in the Bible. The book of Psalms says, the heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Or we could use a verse from Romans 1 that we've come across in theme B. What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. Also, this argument is based on observation. Plato acknowledged there is order in the universe. Even Isaac Newton used the thumbprint as evidence of the existence of God, because each person has an individual and unique thumbprint. He argued that this pointed to a designer rather than random chance. He said, in the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. One of the best arguments against the design argument are all the things in nature which don't work or are ugly, like cancer and tsunamis. We will talk about the problem of evil later in the episode, so you can use that information to counter the design argument. This either points to no designer or an evil designer. Paley would argue that even if a watch is broken, you can still know there is a watchmaker. So even if the world isn't perfect, Paley still thinks they're a designer. Also, many Christians would argue that God designed a perfect world, but gave humans free will, and we have used that to cause problems in the world, both natural and moral. A more recent criticism of the design argument is evolution. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution explains why things look designed. They actually haven't been designed, they have just evolved over billions of years. The process of evolution creates the appearance of design, as anything which doesn't work simply becomes extinct. And only those things able to survive in the Earth's conditions remain. Things did not get designed to be like this, they evolved. If conditions had been different, life could still have evolved, but just a different life. And those living things could also come to the conclusion that they were designed by an intelligent designer. Most non-religious people will say that because there is evidence for evolution, this is a better argument than God as designer. Also, evolution is a cruel random process which would explain all the problems in nature, whereas God being an all-powerful, all-loving being seems inconsistent with the experiences of nature that we see. The next argument you need to know is the argument for miracles, including its strengths and weaknesses and one example of a miracle. This is one of those three special topics where we should be aware of contrasting perspectives in contemporary British society on all of these issues. We should be able to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain, i.e. Christianity, and non-religious beliefs such as atheism and humanism. Quite simply, miracles happen, God is the only one that can cause miracles, therefore God must exist. But before we explore this topic, we need to be very clear on our terms. The word miracle is often used very casually. People talk about the miracle of birth, call lucky events miracles, or use the word to describe something precious or unlikely. But the definition of miracle that AQA wants you to use is an extraordinary, beneficial event that breaks the normal laws of nature and is caused by God. For many religious people, they are seen as signs of divine power and proof that God exists. For example, the resurrection of Jesus. It is a miracle as it breaks the law of nature, raising someone from the dead. And the Bible says if Christ was not raised, your faith is pointless, i.e., the belief in this miracle is what proves that God exists and is worthy of having faith in. But more than that, many believers personally experience miracles, and that proves to them that God exists. Logically, if God exists and created the world, it would make sense that such a being could override the laws of nature that he's created. So if God exists, he could do miracles. So if miracles happen, God caused them and therefore God exists. So the arguments we have for miracles is that they are consistent with an all-loving, all-powerful God. They are consistent with the Bible, which has miracles, not only Jesus' resurrection, but also the many healings Jesus performed, the feeding of the 5,000, healing of the blind man and the lame man, raising Lazarus from the dead. Furthermore, the disciples were given powers to perform miracles. And it says that any Christian will be given the power of the Holy Spirit to heal people. It says in the Bible, and these signs will accompany those who believe. In my name, they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands, and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all. They will place their hands on sick people and they will get well. Also, many Christians have had first-hand accounts of being healed, and most people base their beliefs on their experiences. We are going to look later in the episode at an example of a miracle from Lourdes, and it's a really good example to use because it links with Christian practices. The miracles that happen in Lourdes have to involve someone who has a proven illness, and that has to be verified by two medical doctors. After the healing, enough time has got to pass to check the healing isn't temporary, then two doctors have to declare the person free from the illness. There are 72 of these confirmed healings at Lourdes, which we'll look at in a second. Thomas Aquinas, that we know from the first cause argument and from the just war theory, defined miracles slightly differently. He believed miracles are events caused by God that go beyond normal human understanding of nature rather than breaking natural laws entirely. He suggested miracles fall into three categories. Events nature cannot do at all, events nature can do, but not in that order, and events nature can do, but without nature actually causing this event. If this last type is the case, then it's not always obvious that it is God that has caused it. For example, if someone is ill and then they get better naturally, but someone prays that that person gets better, it is not obvious if it was God or nature that caused that person to get better. There are several other major challenges. Evaluating miracles. First of all, people who experience miracles could be unreliable. They might have lied or just been mistaken. They might have thought they saw something, but not actually. It happens. Verification presents difficulty. Scientific claims can be tested and repeated, but miracles are usually rare, personal, and difficult to confirm. As I said, Lourdes only has 72 miracles in over 150 years, despite millions of people visiting each year. So if you think about the number of people that have gone to Lourdes for Miracles versus the ones that have it, it is more likely that these are coincidences rather than real life miracles. Some argue that the universe is not entirely predictable. Rare or unusual events can occur naturally, sometimes appearing miraculous, even though they follow natural processes, such as randomness or entropy, which explained why disorder and unexpected outcomes naturally arise over time. Occasionally these might benefit you, but that's just a coincidence. If something fortunate happens after prayer, believers may see it as divine intervention, while non-believers will see it as coincidence. Talking of coincidences, some think that random coincidences that benefit you might look like miracles, especially if you've just prayed for it to happen. Some miracle stories may also have alternative explanations. Accounts of raising people from the dead might involve resuscitation rather than resurrection. Healing blindness might have been the treatment of an infection rather than a supernatural act. Stories such as feeding thousands or walking on water may be symbolic, mistranslated, or based on natural events being misunderstood at the time. In some religious texts, miracles are described as signs meant to inspire faith rather than prove supernatural power. There is also a concern that miracles can be manipulated. Psychological factors such as the placebo effect can create real physical improvements simply because people believe they will be healed. Some faith healers use emotional and environments, suggestion and adrenaline to create the appearance of healing. Psychologists and philosophers also highlight confirmation bias. People often interpret events in ways that support what they already believe. And this logically leads on to my next point that miracle stories appear in nearly every religion. Christianity describes healings, resurrections, and supernatural signs. Sikhi includes stories such as Guru Nanak disappearing and returning with spiritual insight. Buddha and Hindu Dharma also contain miracle stories and are often treated symbolically or spiritually. Islam and Judaism contain accounts such as the splitting of the moon or the parting of the Red Sea. Because miracles appear across many religious traditions, some argue that they cancel each other out as proof of the God of each individual religion. I think the strongest argument against miracles is the number of miracles that don't happen. We can link this to the problem of evil. If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why doesn't He perform more miracles? Why doesn't He heal all terminally ill children, for example? It appears very unfair. Miracles seem random. Some people are healed while others suffer despite praying or believing strongly. Religious explanations often suggest suffering has a purpose or that faith plays a role, but critics argue that if an all-loving, all-powerful God existed, miracles would be more consistent and just. So let's think of an example of a miracle from today. I think as Lourdes is on the Christian practice paper, it makes sense to use a healing from there. The last official miracle at Lourdes was the 72nd miracle, Antonia Racco, on April the 16th, 2025. So Bishop Vincenzo Camin Orofino announced the official recognition of the healing of Antonia Racco, who suffered from a severe neurodegenerative disease, PLS, and experienced a complete recovery in 2009. This was declared a miracle in 2025, as they have to check the healing is not temporary. I'll put a link to the story in the show notes. The next thing we need to know is evil and suffering as an argument against the existence of God. Now remember this comes up in Christian beliefs too, but the questions on the paper about it will be different. So you won't get an influence question in paper two, but you will in paper one. So we have two key terms here when we're looking at the problem of evil and suffering. Evil and suffering. So let's start with evil. The definition of this is the opposite of good, a cause of suffering, and something which goes against the will of God. Suffering, on the other hand, is an effect of evil. It is the pain or hardship that happens as a consequence of an evil act. Philosophers often divide evil into two types, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices, things like lying, cheating, bullying, or killing. Natural evil is evil caused by nature, for example, earthquakes, disease, or cancer. Now, obviously, these two groups are not distinct, there are crossovers. So if you smoke, you're more likely to get lung cancer. If you pollute the atmosphere, there's going to be more likely to be more global warming and more natural disasters. So there is a connection between natural evil and moral evil. Also, when natural evil happens, often human responses to it are evil and that creates more suffering. One of the biggest reasons people doubt God's existence is something called the problem of evil. The argument is simple. If God is all powerful, he should be able to stop evil. If God is all-loving, he should want to stop evil. Yet, evil and suffering clearly exist. So it seems that God isn't all-powerful, or isn't all-loving, or doesn't exist at all? Philosophers sometimes call this an inconsistent triad. Three ideas that can't logically fit together. So when we're looking at two Christian beliefs here, we're very much thinking about how would a Christian continue to defend an omnibenevolent God despite the existence of evil and suffering in the world? How can they justify suffering if God is meant to be powerful and loving? A traditional answer is called a theodicy, which means justifying God despite suffering. One famous explanation is the free will defense associated with Augustine of Hippo, which is North Africa, not the animal. The idea is that God gave humans free will, the genuine ability to choose. But real freedom means we can choose badly. Much of the world's suffering comes directly from human decisions violence, greed, war, pollution, and exploitation. Free will is seen by many Christians to be a gift from God, and that it's up to them to be able to use that to choose to turn towards God rather than away from him. Therefore, any suffering that results as a misuse of free will lays the responsibility with humans, not with God. First of all, many Christians agree that suffering is a result of human free will, not the fault of God. We can link this directly to the story in Genesis where God said, You're free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So here we know from the story that Adam and Eve do eat that fruit, thus bringing suffering into the world. Note that it's not an apple, it's just fruit, we don't know which one. Therefore, the fault of the existence of suffering for many Christians lies with humans and not with God. Remember, you can reference the story of Adam and Eve in your answer as it comes from the Bible. You don't need an exact quote. Also, make a note of the link between sin, original sin, evil, and suffering, and then you can link up theme C with Christian beliefs and Christian practices. However, this doesn't explain natural evil directly, although some Christians would say that when humans disobeyed God, it affected nature too. This is shown when God made the snake an enemy of humans. I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel. And then later, when God created a struggle between man and the natural world, and then later, God created a struggle between man and the natural world as a punishment for his sin. Through painful toil, you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow, you will eat food. So this suggests that many of the problems in nature was caused as a direct result of human sin. But this raises another question, and actually you can use this when you're talking about the design argument that the problems in design came from the fool, not from God. But this does raise another question. Why doesn't God intervene more often? As we have discussed, it's hard to explain why help seems selective. And we can link this back to miracles. And it's this if God stopped every harmful action, the world would lose natural laws and consequences. Freedom wouldn't really be freedom. Another approach comes from Irenaeus. He suggested that suffering helps us grow. Struggles can build courage, patience, and compassion. This is sometimes called soul making. It makes our soul better. Just as overcoming challenges can build confidence in a child, facing hardship might shape us into better people. However, some Christians think this clashes with the belief that humans were created good and then fell, rather than being created imperfect and gradually improving through the process of soul making. Secondly, suffering is often also seen as a test of faith from God. Christians might draw upon stories in the Bible like the story of Job, where Job experiences a series of events in his life that caused him immense suffering as part of a test to see if his faith in God wavers. Others say God has ultimately solved the problem of evil, not now, but in the future, promising a world without suffering while giving people time to choose faith first. The Bible talks about heaven being a place with no more pain, no more sadness, no more death, no more mourning. So the ultimate answer to the problem of evil is the afterlife. But I think there are several problems with this. Number one is that not everybody will go to heaven, so what does that say about God? It doesn't explain the extent of suffering on this earth, and it doesn't explain the extent of suffering and the unjust nature of suffering to good people. The second argument against the existence of God we have to know for the exam is the arguments based on science. In order to truly understand this topic, you have to realise that science and religion were interchangeable for most of history. Science was a way of understanding God's universe. It was called natural theology. It wasn't until in the 16th century Copernicus suggested that the earth went round the sun, and therefore the earth was not the centre of the universe, that things started to shift. To be fair, this theory had been around since the first century in ancient Greece, but it was Copernicus who kind of brought it to light again. For the established church at the time of Copernicus, if God created humans as the pinnacle of creation on day six, then our home, the earth, must be the centre of everything. To suggest the sun was the centre of the universe was particularly controversial due to the popularity of sun worship through the ancient religions. There is a reason Genesis puts the creation of the sun on day four, even though light is created first. The church rejected Copernicus's theory. Then Galileo came along with his big telescope and brought further evidence of a heliocentric universe. Interestingly, I'm recording this on the 16th of February, which is Galileo's birthday. Now Galileo was found guilty of heresy and put under house arrest. So heresy is just saying anything against the church. But today, the majority of Christians accept as fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And this is the pattern that we often get, that science suggests something different from the church, the church gets a little bit upset by it, and then over time they eventually accept it. The next challenge comes from Darwin in the 19th century, who came up with a theory that life has evolved over billions of years. We've looked at this when we've looked at the design argument, so you can see how many areas of theme C connect together. The theory of evolution by natural selection sent shockwaves through the established church. They were clear that the Bible said God created each animal distinctly, including humans, within six days. On purpose, and it was good. Evolution was a direct contradiction to this. Plus, the process of evolution was cruel and random. They particularly did not like that we are just evolved apes, as the Bible says that humans are made in God's image. Now, to be clear, Darwin believed in God and was in no way trying to replace the creation story, just reveal what his research had led him to conclude. This theory is now widely accepted among science and some religious people to be the process by which life was created, due to the significant evidence. We've already looked at the different Christian interpretations that if you take the Bible literally, evolution is a very, very difficult theory to accept. If you take the story more metaphorically, you can see that the order of creation in the Bible and the order of evolution is very similar. I think that most Christians have a huge problem that humans evolved from apes. I think that most Christians believe that humans are a distinct creation made in the image of God. But I think most Christians accept a lot of the evolution theory that animals have random genetic changes, and if they provide some kind of competitive advantage, they are more likely to survive. So literal Christians will reject all of evolution, and non-literal Christians will accept some, but not necessarily that humans evolved from apes. And I think most Christians believe that this is quite a cruel process and maybe not consistent with God. The next challenge to God from science is the Big Bang. Because we've looked at this quite a lot in the argument from cause, I'm not going to go into it in huge amounts of detail because you can use that information from the first cause argument. But essentially, the Big Bang is an alternative theory to God created the world. And as there is evidence for it, more people now will accept the Big Bang theory than God. Although many people think the Big Bang also needs a cause and that God is that cause. And that when God said let there be light, this was a metaphor for the Big Bang. I want to just point out here why science challenges the existence of God. There are two reasons. One, if science explains how the world was created, then we don't need God for that explanation, particularly when science has empirical evidence to support it. Some people refer to this as God of the gaps. God is the answer to gaps in our knowledge. But as our knowledge increases, the gaps get smaller, so our need for God is less. Secondly, if science tells a different story to the Bible, the Bible therefore could be wrong and as such, it is not a reliable source of truth. If a Christian takes the Bible literally, then they have to reject science. Science is not compatible with a literal translation of the Bible. They are understandably worried that interpreting the Bible to fit modern society is a dangerous path. However, there are people who believe in both science and God, so science doesn't have to disprove God. In fact, 70% of scientists believe in God, and the majority of Christians believe in the Big Bang. This is because they believe the Genesis story is metaphorically true, not literally true. This means that Genesis doesn't tell a literal exact version of events, therefore is compatible with science. The truth for them is that God created the world on purpose. Science can fill them in on the details. Compare it to procreation. God creates life, but science can explain about the egg and the sperm and the process of conception. This view is supported by looking at the original language that Genesis was written in, Hebrew. The Hebrew word yom that has been translated into day in English translations of the Bible also means period of time. While some Christians today take the English translation literally, many are happy that day doesn't have to mean 24 literal hours and can see that while science explains how, the Bible explains why. Einstein said religion without science is blind, but science without religion is lame. There are other challenges from science too, and that is the challenge to prove the existence of God. With its focus on empirical evidence, that is evidence that uses the five senses, many people reject belief in God for its lack of evidence. However, it must be pointed out that the only truly scientific standpoint in relation to God's existence is agnosticism, as there is no conclusive evidence either way. But I want to just remind you of that verse from Romans. What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. And I really like the idea that this can link to Pilgrimage to Iona, where Christians are standing in nature and they can feel the veil between heaven and earth be at its thinnest. This leads us nicely onto the section of the specification, General Revelation, nature and scripture as a way of understanding the divine. What that means is that the natural world and the Bible help people understand God. We've already said that the Bible says that it is possible to understand God through nature, so let's start there and let's look at how it helps Christians understand God. The specification talks about six specific elements of God's nature, so we will take each one in turn and link it to creation. First is omnipotent. This is the belief that God is all-powerful. In the Bible it says, with God all things are possible. This very clearly links to nature because it is this power that meant God was able to create the world in all its complexities, from nothing by speaking. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Then God said, Let there be light, and there was light. So the very fact that something exists rather than nothing shows God's omnipotence. And when Christians look at nature and consider how God made it, it helps them understand the extent to his power. We can also use this in Christian beliefs when we're talking about the nature of God. So please constantly make links between different parts of the spec. The next quality is omniscient. This means that God is all-knowing. So not only did God know how to create, he also knew how to ensure life continued and all the things that would be needed and what they needed to be like. For example, the sun and earth are the perfect distance away from each other to maintain the right atmosphere for life to be sustained. How our eyes work to allow us to see height, depth, distance, and colour. When it says God saw all that he has made and saw it was good, it shows that he observed what he had made and had knowledge of it and came to a conclusion about it. The next nature of God we need to have a look at is personal and impersonal. This is really interesting and we have to go a bit deep into Genesis chapter 1 and 2. In Genesis chapter 1, in the original Hebrew, God is referred to as Elohim. He is much more impersonal, creating things from a distance. God said, Let there be light and there was light. But then in chapter 2, in the original Hebrew, God is referred to as Yahweh and is walking in the garden with humans and chatting to them, so it is much more personal. Furthermore, if we think about the fact that humans were made in God's image, this connects God and humans more personally. Before the fall, we had a personal relationship with God, but after the fall, there is a separation of God and humans. If we also think that God's invisible qualities are revealed through nature, this means that we can get to know God through his creation. We've already said that we can link this back to Iona and the thin place, because nature helps the veil between God and humans become thinner. So throughout this story, Christians can understand. The personal and impersonal God. Linked to this is imminent and transcendent. Imminent means close to humans, he intervenes in our lives, is knowable, whereas transcendent means beyond our understanding or beyond this world. This is clearly expressed through creation. First, in order to create the world, God has to transcend the natural world. He couldn't be part of the creation, he has to be separate from it. He had to exist before creation and before time. When we make a cake, we are not the cake. We exist outside of the cake, and the cake does not understand its creator. When it says God saw all that he has made, it gives the impression that God is outside of this creation, observing it. Also, we did not observe God create the world. So this whole story of creation is beyond our understanding. We can go back to the story of Job again and that part where God asked Job, Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? This is God clearly putting Job in his place when Job was questioning God and highlighting his transcendent nature. However, God is also close by in creation. He's imminent. He is walking in the garden. Humans were made in his image. He is expressed through his creation. Christians can feel close to God when they are in nature. Remember, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. The problem with nature as a source of general revelation is that nature has some issues, not only by design, but also due to the fall. Let's take the predatory nature of the natural world. When a predator chases its prey then tears it apart, it might be difficult to see God. Or when a child gets cancer, it is difficult to understand the nature of God. But we can go back to Job, where God talks about the beasts he has created, the Beamoth and the Leviathan, and has no problem in reconciling these things with his nature. But we are looking at such things with human eyes and don't understand the scope of God's creative energy. The other type of general revelation we need to look at is the Bible, which is the written revelation, and also Jesus, the word-made flesh, who is the physical representation of that revelation, i.e., he lived on earth and taught and modelled the special things God wanted to reveal. What we can do here is bring together lots of things from the rest of the course to help us. So if we look at those six qualities again, we can look at specific parts of the Bible that help Christians understand these and then link them to the person of Jesus too. So omnipotence, God as all-powerful, we know links to the story of creation in the Bible, to the incarnation of God as Jesus, and to the resurrection. The Bible shows power over creation, power over life, power over death. Also, Jesus performed miracles while he was alive that further show power. For example, raising Lazarus from the dead. Omniscience, God is all knowing. We've already looked at how the story of Genesis reveals God's omniscience, but there is a verse we might use in theme B where it says, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. We can use this verse to support pro-life arguments in the abortion debate, as well as supporting general revelation about God's omniscience in the Bible. There are also many times Jesus revealed his omniscience, but I think the one which links best to the course is the Last Supper. It is clear that Jesus knew Judas would betray him, knew Peter would deny him, knew the hour had come for his arrest, and he asked his disciples to stay awake with him. He knew the amount of suffering he would receive, because we see evidence that he prayed to God to take this suffering away. He also knew he would come back. The Bible says the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, that he must be killed and after three days rise again. Personal, we have seen the personal nature of God in Genesis 2, where God walks in the garden with humans. If we look at the story of Job that we have looked at throughout this topic, we see Job and God having a conversation, which clearly shows the personal nature of God. Jesus also shows a personal relationship with his father, sometimes calling him Abba, which is the word for daddy. Also, if Jesus is God, we see the personal relationship Jesus has with his disciples, calling John the one whom he loved. Plus, Jesus had many other close friends and is seen to have wept when his friend Lazarus died. Impersonal. So we have looked at the impersonal God who created the heavens and earth in Genesis chapter 1, and we looked at the verse in Romans that talks about God's invisible qualities. So this shows that God is not really knowable. Also, remember on the cross when Jesus says, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? This shows that sin separates God from humans because in that moment Jesus became sin and took the punishment away from humans, so was separated from God. Transcendent. We have seen the idea of God as needing to transcend creation in order to have been able to create it. But I think the best example to use for Jesus is when he says the Lord's Prayer, our Father who art in heaven. So God is transcendent, he is in heaven. And we know that the Lord's Prayer links to prayer, to liturgical worship, the importance of Jesus, beliefs about the Trinity, so it's a really good source of authority to have throughout the course. Imminent. We have looked at how God is present in creation, but Psalm 23, the Lord's My Shepherd, is a good example of God's imminence, particularly the part that says, For you are with me. The Bible also teaches that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians believe they are born of water and born of the Spirit. This means that when people become Christians, God lives inside of them through the Holy Spirit. So a good example of God's imminence links to baptism, so we can link it to Christian practices. The problem with this general revelation, as I've hinted at, is that God appears differently at different times. Impersonal and transcendent in Genesis 1, personal and imminent in Genesis 2, angry and punishing in Genesis 3. With Job, God has a wager with Satan. God floods the earth, drowning his creation during the time of Noah. He later becomes human and sacrifices himself through Jesus. So we've got real problems with how God is revealed through the Bible. However, while God does reveal himself in a general way through the Bible and through Jesus, he also sometimes reveals himself in a special way. This is called special revelation and can be a source of knowledge about the divine. So let's think about this term special revelation, which is the next point on the specification. I know it's a tough one, but let's just unpack our terms. Revelation comes from the word reveal. So we are talking about special ways that God reveals truths about himself to humans. They are special because they are direct and specific. So while the Bible and Jesus is for everybody, special revelations are usually specific to a person. So special revelation is the idea that God directly reveals specific truths about himself, his will, and salvation to specific individuals or groups. Unlike general revelation, where God is revealing himself in nature in the Bible, as we have just seen, this is a supernatural personal revelation. We can look at how God revealed himself to special people throughout history. The easiest one to use as an example is God's special revelation to Mary through the angel Gabriel. So we can link this to the incarnation topic in Christian beliefs and Christmas in Christian practices. We can also link this to God's nature. If God is all powerful, then he will be able to reveal truth to us. If he is loving, he will want to. And if he is just, he will have to. The story of Mary reveals that God wanted to become human, and this also links back to his power and love. And this revelation is central to the Christian faith. In many Christian traditions, special revelation is considered to have ended when the Bible is finally connected together. Most Christians today have revelation through the Bible, so have general revelation through the Bible. They believe God is speaking to them through guiding them to specific passages in the Bible. There are lots of arguments against special revelation, which are similar to those in regards to miracles. Can we rely on those who received the revelation? Were they mistaken? Were they lying? Or have they misunderstood the message? For example, George Bush Jr. believed God told him to become president and told him to go to war in Afghanistan. While there is precedent for God calling people to war in the Old Testament, this is not present in the New Testament. So many Christians were sceptical of this revelation, particularly as it was self-serving and what Bush wanted to do anyway. But if God exists, he would want to send messages to his people. He should be able to, and it is something which is consistent with the Bible. The next bullet point on the spec is visions and one example of a vision. This is one of those special topics where we must be able to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain, Christianity, and non-religious beliefs such as atheism and humanism. So let's identify what we mean by vision. Quite simply, it is when someone sees something that is supernatural, which they believe comes from God. Throughout the Bible, we see these. Moses, where God appears as a burning bush, Mary seeing the angel. The angel was the vision, the message was the special revelation. Saul hearing God on the road to Damascus. So you can use any of these stories and reference the Bible as your source of authority. There is also a biblical basis for why people see visions representing God. In Exodus in the Bible, it says, No one can see my face and live. So God has to present himself as something else when he appears to people. Many Christians believe that visions no longer happen today as the Bible reveals all there is about God. However, we know the story of Bernadette seeing a vision for Mary and the significance of this in terms of a pilgrimage to Lourdes. I would use this as your example of vision so that you can reduce the amount of knowledge you have to remember. Then you can use this in your Christian pilgrimage questions as well as questions on visions in this unit. In 1858, 14-year-old Bernadette Subarus reported 18 visions of a young and beautiful lady in a grotto near Lourdes in France. The lady appeared in white with a blue sash, a yellow rose on each foot, and a rosary. During the 16th vision, she identified herself as the Immaculate Conception. This is the fact that she is Mary, who was conceived by her mother immaculately. She commanded Bernadette to wash in the water. There was no water, so Bernadette dug in the ground and eventually water flowed that is believed still today to be water with healing properties, and many travel there to bathe in and drink in it to receive healing. As we know, 72 people have been healed. I think one of the strongest arguments against visions is that in the 21st century, from an atheistic and psychological perspective, if people see things that are not there, we are concerned for their mental state. We tend not to believe them and base faith on it. So in contemporary modern society, we should be skeptical about any human having visions. But we have to understand that in the ancient and biblical worlds, this was common practice and visions were seen as a valid way that God communicated with people. Furthermore, we have to be aware that in the Bible, God warns against false visions. It says, My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions. So even God instructs believers to be skeptical. And in the New Testament, there is talk of false prophets. And we know that in the book of Revelation, which talks about the end of the world, there will be one single false prophet that will deceive many believers. A Christian would say that any claim of a vision would have to be checked against the teachings in the Bible to ensure the message was consistent with God's word and what we know about God's nature. But the Bible also says that Satan disguised himself as an angel of light. And so therefore it can be really hard to decide if a vision is real. If we think about this as a 12 marker, we would have to say the evidence from the Bible and from psychology all warn against visions as a reliable way of understanding God. The final point on the spec is enlightenment as a source of knowledge about the divine. This is the part of the spec that most students find the most tricky to understand. All I want you to think about is that aha moment. Lots of Christians read the Bible regularly. They've heard stories from their upbringing, at church, or in worship. However, some Christians talk about a moment when a verse or passage in the Bible suddenly and dramatically makes sense to them. This is known as enlightenment. The light bulb suddenly switches on. It might be that they knew Jesus died for humanity, but then they suddenly realize that that means Jesus died for them. And they suddenly feel personally humbled and grateful and may praise God for this. The Bible says, now we have received the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. Jesus also said, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. It makes sense that if God is all powerful and all-loving, he wants Christians to be able to remember and understand his words. These moments of enlightenment, helped by the Holy Spirit, often help Christians to understand the personal imminent nature of God. So let's have a quick think about some exam questions. In a one marker, you might be asked to give one type of general revelation, in which case, just choose the Bible. Or you could be asked to give one type of special revelation. So I would choose Mary being told she would give birth to Jesus. Let's look at a four marker, and I'm going to choose one of those three special topics, visions. So the question would be: explain two different beliefs in contemporary British society about visions. In your answer, you should refer to the main religious tradition of Great Britain and non-religious beliefs. So we want to give a Christian belief about visions and we want to give a non-religious view about visions. I think we need to make it easy on ourselves. I would always argue that Christians think this is a valid way of God revealing truth, as it has a basis in the Bible, and that non-religious people believe these are unreliable because there's no proof and people might be mistaken. So let's put that into a four-mark structure, which is two fully developed points. And we must clearly identify the religion. Most Christians believe visions are a valid way that God reveals truth to his people. One mark for a simple explanation. This is because there is evidence of visions in the Bible, for example, when Mary saw a vision of the angel who told her she would give birth to Jesus. I've developed that point for my second mark. However, most non-religious people do not think visions are a valid way of understanding what is true. My second simple explanation for my third mark. This is because there is no proof of that vision happening and the person's account might be unreliable. So I've developed that point for my fourth mark. So we have two different beliefs about visions. Both are fully developed, and we have clearly shown a Christian and a non-religious response. What I would do now is do the same question, but I would replace visions for one of those other two special topics, either miracles or nature as general revelation. So let's have a look at a six marker now. Explain two religious beliefs about miracles. Refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief and teaching in your answer. Now we want to keep this as simple as possible. I would link miracles to God's nature. So, one, that they show God is all powerful, and two, that they show that God is all-loving. I would use examples of a miracle from the Bible as our source of authority, as this is the easiest option. We must remember to clearly name our religion, and we must not answer in full sentences. One Christian belief is that miracles demonstrate God's omnipotence, which means he is all-powerful. This is because only an all-powerful God could perform miracles. An example of a miracle that shows God's power is the resurrection of Jesus in the Bible. This shows the miracle of Jesus coming back to life after death, which could only be done through the power of God. Another belief is that miracles show God's omnibenevolence, which means He is all-loving. This is because an all-loving God would want to heal people as an expression of that love. So we've got two developed points. It's linked to Christianity, it's related to a belief about miracles, we've got clear reference to the Bible, and we've got an example of a miracle, but we haven't got a quote. It doesn't have to be a direct quote, just something which is in the Bible. So let's have a look at a 12-marker. The design argument proves that God exists. Evaluate this statement. In your answer, you should give reasoned arguments in support of this statement, should give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view, should refer to non-religious arguments, may refer to non-religious arguments, and should reach a justified conclusion. Things to avoid in this 12-marker is a detailed account of the design argument or a detailed account of the watch analogy or of evolution. Also, we don't want to talk about the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not explain the appearance of design in the world. It just explains why there is something other than nothing. Also, we've got to be careful not to just give a for and against essay on the design argument. We've got to look at the nuance. Does it prove the existence of God? So let's bug the question. B means box the command word. This is evaluate, which means to weigh up different opinions and decide which is the most convincing. U is underline the keywords or phrases. Design argument, prove, and God exists. So we can only focus on the design argument and we're going to work out if it provides a good enough proof for the existence of God. G means go back and glance. Is there anything we've missed? So let's consider what makes good evidence. One is empirical evidence, things we can observe through our senses and test, and one is reason. What does logic and reason tell us? In our first paragraph, we want to go straight into answering the question. So we're going to start with most Christians argue that the design argument does prove the existence of God because. And we want to go through reasons supported by religious teachings. For example, it's what the Bible says. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. We can talk about the fact that there is evidence of design when we look at nature. For example, that our eye is perfectly suited to being able to see the Earth accurately. Gravity is perfectly suited for humans. The water cycle, etc. We could also add some data about how tiny the chance is that we could survive on a planet. So not only does it appear designed, it appears specifically designed for humans, which links to Genesis 1. We can talk about the use of analogies like the Watchmaker analogy from Paley, which supports the argument of a universe maker and therefore makes the argument logical. At the end of our paragraph, we need to evaluate this argument and say that it is strong for Christians because it supports what they already believe. But as we can't observe God designing the universe, it is not a strong argument empirically. Then we can start on the second paragraph and look at reasons that the design argument does not prove the existence of God. And we can look at parts of the earth that are not well designed, for example, predators' prey, natural disasters and diseases, which are inconsistent with the classical theistic God as all-loving. We can look at how Darwin's theory of evolution shows that through a process of natural selection, anything which does not have the right characteristics to survive becomes extinct. So only things which work are able to survive, giving the illusion of design. Also, the fact that all religions have a story of a deity being responsible for the earth means that we don't know which god it was. So the design argument doesn't prove any one god, maybe it was lots of gods. We could argue that this is a strong argument as evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and logically the process of evolution by natural selection would give the illusion of design, so the world doesn't need a designer to be the way it is. Also, the evidence of cruelty in nature is more consistent with a random natural process than it is an all loving God. We could also show that if the design argument did prove God exists, everyone would believe in God, which they don't. We could then say that some theists might argue back and say that the flaw. In the design come with the full, but before it was how God designed it and creation was good. So God designed it perfectly, but we used our free will to bring sin into the world, and the consequence of this was problems in nature. When we conclude, we are not going to give our opinion on the design argument or our belief about God's existence. We have to argue which side is the strongest. This conclusion has to be consistent with what we have said in our essay, which is that the most convincing argument is that the design argument does not prove that God exists. The evidence supports evolution more than an all-loving designer, and there is not a strong enough argument to determine which God it is that has done the designing. I quite like having a final sentence that says, in conclusion, while this argument doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, it just shows that the design argument isn't successful improving it. So I hope that has helped as an overview of theme C as well as applying the content to exam questions and making links to other parts of the course. I would practice some four and six markers, keeping the style of question the same as mine, but putting in other parts of the spec. Try and choose the parts that you feel weakest on. Revise them, check you understand them, then apply them to the exam questions. Or you could do another 12 marker about the first cause argument. Also, if you really enjoy theme C, consider taking A-level religious studies. If you want to know more, listen to my episode on where this might take you. Link are in the show notes. This podcast is supported by ReimaginingEducation at reimaginingeducation.uk. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this has been the RE podcast, the podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it might be. But I hope it gains you the qualifications you need for your next stage of education. And thank you for letting me bore the life out of you.