Author: chris

Arguments on God

Worth: 200pts

Length: 1000 words min/max

We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God

• The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant)

• The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie)

For this paper you’re asked to do three things:

1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God

2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked

3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong.

Arguments on God

Worth: 200pts

Length: 1000 words min/max

We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God

• The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant)

• The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie)

For this paper you’re asked to do three things:

1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God

2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked

3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong.

General Guidelines (Mandatory):

Arguments on God

Worth: 200pts

Length: 1000 words min/max

We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God

• The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant)

• The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie)

For this paper you’re asked to do three things:

1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God

2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked

3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong.

General Guidelines (Mandatory):

• All arguments should be explained in such a way that someone who had never heard of them could understand the arguments after reading your paper. When writing, imagine that you’re explaining the concepts to someone who is unfamiliar with them.

• When explaining arguments and counterarguments, do so as if you agree with the positions. Even if you think the argument is wrong, don’t let that show in your explanation. You’ll have the opportunity to critique all the arguments in section (3)!

• Relevant quotes (and proper page citations) should be employed for each position you discuss. Remember to explain the meaning of the quotes you use.

• Provide examples to help elucidate your or the philosophers’ points.

• Do not go off track in section (3). Remember that you’re evaluating arguments here. Even if you agree with the conclusion (that God exists or that God doesn’t exist), that doesn’t mean you have to agree that the argument is good. Take care to not introduce irrelevant information here. For example, if you’re discussing the Ontological Argument and its criticisms, section (3) is not the time to discuss a miracle you experienced, since that doesn’t have any bearing on the arguments. Keep things on track!

• Remember that we’re looking at the strength of the arguments here! Even if you agree with a philosopher’s conclusion (for instance, that God exists), that doesn’t mean you should feel compelled to think that their argument that supports that conclusion is a good one. It’s ok to concede that one argument is superior even if you disagree with the conclusion for personal reasons.

Specific Guidelines:

Ontological Argument:

• Take care to explain Anselm’s argument as thoroughly as possible. Go through each step and explain how it works toward the conclusion.

• Do the same for the criticisms (all three). Explain them as completely as possible. This will take more than a sentence or two for each one.

Design Argument:

• Make sure to explain the Design argument as comprehensively as possible.

• Remember that Hume approaches the issue in the form of a dialog. One speaker defends the design argument while another denounces it.

• Hume offers 3 principle arguments against the Design argument.

• Mackie’s points fit nicely with one particular criticism from Hume. Think of which one that is and incorporate it.

Length: 1000 words min/max

We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God

• The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant)

• The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie)

For this paper you’re asked to do three things:

1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God

2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked

3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong.

General Guidelines (Mandatory):

• All arguments should be explained in such a way that someone who had never heard of them could understand the arguments after reading your paper. When writing, imagine that you’re explaining the concepts to someone who is unfamiliar with them.

• When explaining arguments and counterarguments, do so as if you agree with the positions. Even if you think the argument is wrong, don’t let that show in your explanation. You’ll have the opportunity to critique all the arguments in section (3)!

• Relevant quotes (and proper page citations) should be employed for each position you discuss. Remember to explain the meaning of the quotes you use.

• Provide examples to help elucidate your or the philosophers’ points.

• Do not go off track in section (3). Remember that you’re evaluating arguments here. Even if you agree with the conclusion (that God exists or that God doesn’t exist), that doesn’t mean you have to agree that the argument is good. Take care to not introduce irrelevant information here. For example, if you’re discussing the Ontological Argument and its criticisms, section (3) is not the time to discuss a miracle you experienced, since that doesn’t have any bearing on the arguments. Keep things on track!

• Remember that we’re looking at the strength of the arguments here! Even if you agree with a philosopher’s conclusion (for instance, that God exists), that doesn’t mean you should feel compelled to think that their argument that supports that conclusion is a good one. It’s ok to concede that one argument is superior even if you disagree with the conclusion for personal reasons.

Submit a paper that addresses systems descriptions. The paper must be at least three pages in length (excluding the title and reference pages or flow chart) and include at least three scholarly sources (in addition to the text). You must include the following:

Describe the logistics and supply chain management system of your firm or a firm you have researched.
Analyze the inputs of materials or resources used in the business.
Describe the internal tasks and the output.
Create a process flow chart in the paper, Excel, or other tools that may work to display the steps graphically. If you decide to create the flow chart in Excel, be sure to submit the document separately.

Your fast-food franchise has been cleared for business in all 4 countries (United Arab Emirates, Israel, Mexico, and China). You now have to start construction on your restaurants. The financing is coming from the United Arab Emirates, the materials are coming from Mexico and China, the engineering and technology are coming from Israel , and the labor will be hired locally within these countries by your management team from the United States. You invite all of the players to the headquarters in the United States for a big meeting to explain the project and get to know one another. In preparation for the meeting, you want to avoid cultural silos, while ensuring all parties engage with each other. Answer the following questions in preparation:.

What do you know about these cultures—specifically their economic, political, educational, and social systems—that could help you in getting them together?
What are some of the contrasting cultural values of these countries?

As you begin to plan, you are concerned about some of the language barriers, particularly the fact that the United States is a low-context country, and some of the countries present are high-context countries. Furthermore, you only speak English, and you do not have an interpreter planned at this time. What strategy would you use to begin to have everyone develop a relationship with each other that will help ease future negotiations, development, and implementation? Address the following questions in your response.

How will this affect the presentation?
What are some of the issues you should be concerned about regarding verbal and nonverbal language for this group?

See Decription

[Pin It]

Define federalism and discuss how it relates to national and state sovereignty. What are the similarities and differences between today’s version of federalism and the federalism that was established in 1787?

Your response should be at least 300 words in length.

How does our current party system impact elections? How can a minor party play a part in an election?

Your response should be at least 300 words in length

Do you feel that it is important that every person that is legally allowed to vote does so? Why or why not? Do you feel that it is easy for most people to go and vote? Why or why not? Describe some common trends that keep people from voting. Describe other methods besides voting that people can use to participate in the political process. Have you every participated in any of these methods? If so, what did you do?

Your response should be at least 300 words in length.

Describe the difference and similarities between inside lobbying and outside lobbying. Discuss laws and regulations that apply to each.

Your response should be at least 300 words in length.

Do you feel that special interest groups have too much power in politics today? Why or why not? Do you think we should allow these interest groups to continue to function as they currently do? Why or why not? What do you think would happen to our nation if we did not allow interest groups to continue to operate?

Your response should be at least 300 words in length.

Determine whether a steel company or a retail food chain would have a greater business risk. Provide support for your rationale.
Discuss why you would not expect all industries to have a similar relationship trend to the economy. Provide an example of two industries that have a different relationship to the economy and explain the difference.

Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:

1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.

2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons.

3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.

4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.

5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.

Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:

1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.

2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons.

3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.

4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.

5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.