My Hero Candide Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

My Hero Candide - Essay Example But to put a characterization on Candide for purposes of describing a true and authentic hero would require setting Candide up to the standards of what a true and authentic hero is. My concept of a hero is one who is morally upright, is resolute and steadfast in his convictions, stands up for others who are aggrieved or for whom he is fallen, and pursues a life direction that is worth emulating. It is against these character ideals that I shall pit the personification on Candide to see how far or how close he is to my hero model. Does Candide fit? At the beginning of the novel (SparkNotes Editors), Candide is depicted as an unassuming, innocent-looking boy in the household of a rich German baron who had a beautiful daughter named Cunegonde. Candide fell deeply in love with her, something the baron did not like and which caused his banishment from the baron’s house. Candide’s youthful innocence reflects his uprightness as an individual, even believing his tutor’s line that the world is the best that it is. It may have been an unrealistic posture but it explained the depth of his love for Cunegonde. In fact, that naivete provided the drama and the reason for him to fight to win over the struggles, the obstacles, and the misfortunes that stood his way. Against my second hero trait of resoluteness and steadfastness, Candide handily wins with flying colors.

Dantes Third Circle of Hell Essay Example for Free

Dantes Third Circle of Hell Essay In Dantes The Inferno, the third circle of Hell is reserved for the gluttonous. After awaking from a faint, Dante soon finds himself in the third circle surrounded by the foul slush. He tells about the black snow falling into the dirty water. Dante also tells of the stinking dirt that festered there. In this circle lives the three-headed monster Cerberus, ripping and tearing at the sinners as they lie in the sludge. The only soul named in this circle is Ciacco, nicknamed The Hog. Ciacco was a resident of Florence who was a glutton. He tells Dante that for his offense he lies rotting like a swollen log, doomed to wallow in the mire and smell the wretched stench for all eternity. Dante, aghast at the putrid-smelling slop, tells Ciacco that the sinners agony weighs on my heart and calls my soul to tears. Although he pities Ciaccos condition, he does not hesitate to ask him for information concerning Florence, and it is Ciacco who gives Dante the first political prophecy of The Inferno. Virgil seems to be unmoved by either Ciaccos or Dantes show of feelings. Instead, he takes the opportunity to explain to Dante that as the perfection of judgement nears, both pleasure and pain will become more pronounced. Dante realizes that for the sinners in Hell, this means that the pain of their punishment will become greater. By discussing the foul sludge, the black snow falling, and the putrid scent in the air, Dante shows that those who were gluttonous on Earth will be punished by forever wallowing in the end result of their incontinence, a filthy, stinking pit of misery.

Creativity: The Most Common Tool to Explain Human Origin?

Creativity: The Most Common Tool to Explain Human Origin? Has Creativity Been the Most Common Tool to Explain Human Origin? Bryan Perez   Abstract The creative process is directly involved in the development of theories that explain the mans origin. In like manner, the religion and the science are connected by their provenance. The contemporaneous beliefs and the cultural stories from ancient civilizations are also influenced by creativity, equally, evolution shows a creative development located in some stages that shows morphological and psychological changes. This paper evaluates the creative influence in the development of theories which explain the mans origin. Web sources and also relevant books were used to identify and link different points of view about the topic. The most remarkable results locate the creativity as the process that humans develop all along, with attention to chronological interpretations such as the evolution stages and also common points in different religious and cultural beliefs. Finally, the conclusion stablishes how creativity may influence the theories postulation, issue where it should be as obj ective as possible to attempt to explain facts instead of thoughts. Introduction It is said that God has created man in his own image. But it may be that humankind has created God in the image of humankind (Hanh, 1999). Sometimes, people ask themselves how everything around them was created. What or Who is the creator of everything? Answers to these questions are generated by the same common people, children, teachers, youths and scientists, who constantly ask for explanations about their origin. This origin is usually related to some theories (creationism and evolutionism), which come from a process of investigation and a little part of imagination. Even when these theories explain facts (National Center for Science Education, n.d., para. 3), scientists do not have enough evidence about the first yoctosecond of the Universes existence. They may be obligated to complete the missing piece of the puzzle with some ideas elaborated by their creative minds. The evolution theory has undergone some changes throughout history. It is a consequence of the creative influence on the development of new theories. For interesting topics, creativity is really useful. Scientists should be conscious of the information they provide with their theories. Mans creativity has been an important part of the explanation of his origin, this statement is sustained in three relevant aspects: mans creation theories with a common theme about a creator, human evolutive process and its refutations, and lastly, the creative development that leads to reason beyond simple ideas. Common theme in creation theories Have been heard about humans out of yellow and white corn (Batz, 2012)? Or maybe Lake Titicaca Story? Those are theories that explain mans origin on the Mayas and the Incas creation. In another part, the Creationist theory is really linked with these, concluding that there are different theories about mans origin, but all of them have a common point of a unique Creator. Humans origin theories To understand the influence of creativity on these humans origin theories, it is necessary to explain three common examples. As the Bible says: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27 English Standard Version). For Christianism, like a monotheistic religion, God is the only explanation for all questions about how man has come into existence until now. In another place the Mayas theory tells that the Creators (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) wanted to create human beings with hearts and minds who could keep the days (Batz, 2012). This last phrase complicated the situation for the Mayas gods, because they had to create three different types of humans. The first group was made of mud, but rain destroyed them and moreover they could not speak. Gods tried again, and created mans of wood, but these did not revere them. When these deities finally created humans out of yellow and white corn who could talk, they were satisfied (Batz, 2012), because these had intelligence and respect for their creators. In a last comparative theory, Incas converge in a general idea. God Viracocha created Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo[1], who emerged from the Lake Titicaca and walked guided by a wooden bar directly to El Cuzco, place where they found the Inca Empire (Cobo, 1979). Creativity on this common point As it is remarkable, the theories have showed a common theme in the idea of an only Creator or Creators. For Christianism, the human being was created from mud, while for the Mayas, muds man was a failure. The Incas, for their part, create a couple similar to Adam and Eve in Christianism but one more time, their God was who create everything around. Except for Christianity, the others are polytheistic, but this does not change that in almost every culture around the world, the religion of a particular culture began with a concept of a masculine, creator God who lives in the heavens (Zukeran, 2007). In the same line, creativity is therefore, responsible for this common point. Human beings develop creative ideas from 6 resources- intellectual processes, knowledge, intellectual style, personality, motivation, and environmental context (Sternberg Lubart, 1991). In consequence, it is thinkable that Individuals may be driven to try to create a sense of coherent self-identity through time, in particular in self-narratives of their development (Feinsten, 2006, p.26); in other words, past civilizations have developed the necessity to create a God in who believed and whom they can worship. To sum up, the similarities founded reflect that there is a common point that prevails between the theories analyzed, this point reflects the creative influence that man uses to explain his own origin in a religious context. Human evolutive process and its refutations It has been thought that evolution is the most acceptable theory to explain the mans origin. The theory bases its main argument on the most evidence that has been discovered through time, nonetheless, this theory has its own refutations, too. On this way, scientists are creative people who beyond postulate a theory, postulate a creative bond that establish the evolution as the explanation for the mans origin. The process of the evolution A Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics, Georges Lemaà ®tre proposed the Big Bang theory in 1933. For Catholicism, it was declared as a scientific validation, however, Lemaà ®tre resented this proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory (Landsberg, 1999). As it is seen, this theory has a religious origin; but at the same time, it is considered like a valuable explanation for the current science. Lemaà ®tres thought gave birth the Evolution theory by explaining the Earth origin, place where human beings evolved from apes. It was only late in the Tertiary period (about 3-4 million years ago) that one of the branches of the Primates evolved into humans (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) Human fossils as well as molecular genetic and biochemical evidence demonstrate the existence of early life forms, which developed before and prepared the present living beings (Facchini, 2002). Do the refutations show a creative intervention of scientists? A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations (Thomas, 2012). This fact demonstrates that scientists do not concordat in a common explanation for the evolution process. In addition, another evidence tells that the transition from an amphibians three-chambered heart to a mammals four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow (Thomas, 2012). On the other hand, fossils are the main evidence to support the evolution theory; but as Ph.D. John D. Morris says, fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time (2003). This shows that fossils do not explain evolution as such, so it may be considered that scientists created the bonds between missing links of the evolution theory. The article Scientists are more creative than you might imagine, shows that the improvising brains (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) let the ideas bubble to the surface (Ossola, 2014). Some lines after, the article explain that its going to be the same phenomenon on scientists. Thus, it is reasonable to identify that scientists may develop an involuntary process of creativity when they try to explain unlinked ages of the evolution theory. The reason of all Creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value (Robinson, 2006), thus, it is possible to ask, how may the people create their own origin story by using their creativity? The creative development leads to establish questions or answers about this topic. Scientific postulations and also religious theories have a little influence of subjective thoughts. Indeed, the creativity is much more than an innate quality, it is a state where it is possible to create something. It is exemplified in the students who may demonstrated this by developing their skills into the schools. So, teachers have the big duty of drive the way students learn and what they need to learn (Segan, 2016), because it is changing rapidly. The reason of all comes from this fact, even with the scarcity of modern (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) supplies in poor parts of the world (Childress, 2007), creativity may be developed in every sense; including the development of new theories applicable to the subject of evolution or the mans origin. The reason of all also involves a great link between actual teachers and future scientists, something similar to the educational development of Finland (Faust, 2011), where the creativity is one of the pillars of the education. Therefore, the creative process shows that creativity is the question and the answer for this topic, it is involved in developing or repairing ideas to connect everything related in a theory postulation. In conclusion, the explanation for the mans origin is due to the creative process. This idea is based on three relevant aspects: theories of mans creation, human evolutive process, and lastly the creative development that leads to establish questionable answers about our origin. For the etymology of the Incas and also the Mayas, their existence comes from a gods creation. Historically, the Christianity changed these thoughts into a conventional belief in an only almighty God, who answers every question about human existence. On the contrary, the evolution theory postulates a continuous process of development during several generations in past ages of life. The creative intervention is located in every theory. Humans have a psychological need for a transcendent being that provides meaning and hope to their existence in this vast impersonal universe (Zukeran, 2007). This phrase clears the idea about how the man may include his own thoughts in objective statements like theories. Sometimes, creativity is underestimated in several ways, especially for science works, but it is an inherent quality of the human existence; so, the creativity influences our thoughts. The human being and his origin is a questionable topic. There are some theories of how he could exist from the first period of time. Creator or creators, evolution or not, the creativity was shown as the question and the answer for this topic because it is involved in developing or repairing ideas to connect everything related in a theory postulation. [1] The first couple of human beings in the Incas theory.

Religious Meaning Of The Birthright Story :: essays research papers

Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story Genesis Ch 25:27-34 As the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man who lived in the open; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents. Isaac preferred Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah preferred Jacob. Once, when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the open, famished. He said to Jacob, "Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I'm starving." (That is why he was called Edom.) But Jacob replied, "First give me your birthright in exchange for it." "Look," Esau said, "I'm on the point of dying, what good will any birthright do me?" But Jacob insisted, "Swear to me first!" So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath. Jacob then gave him some bread and the lentil stew; and Esau cared little for his birthright. This Old Testament story holds significant meaning for all of us. There is the obvious conflict within the family of two brothers who are very different personality types, parents who show partiality toward each of their favorite sons and the way that God allows events to happen as He relates to each of the characters involved. Exploring both the surface story and the deeper implications it has as it relates to our own lives, we can hopefully derive some deeper meaning which God working through the author intends. On the surface, we see a story of rivalry that is typical even in modern times, yet we can also look to some valuable truths that are revealed about how God sees our personal motives and actions through the characters of Jacob and Esau. Gaining an understanding of the characters, their motives and the overall big picture of God's plan, we can better find some spiritual lessons of our own life. Jacob was the third link in God's plan of the patriarchs. In Gn 25:23, the Lord tells Jacob's mother, Rebekah, that she has twins. The Lord tells her that the younger one will overtake the second. The favoritism of the children shows weakness on the part of the parents that can contribute in a large part to the discord between Jacob and Esau. It is no surprise that when parents are in conflict, the entire peace of the family is in jeopardy. Jacob's name means "Grabber." Possibly this shows how he and Esau were in competition from the start. This seems appropriate for two brothers in a small family and their sibling rivalry is understandable in light of the benefits derived from being born first. Religious Meaning Of The Birthright Story :: essays research papers Religious Meaning of the Birthright Story Genesis Ch 25:27-34 As the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man who lived in the open; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents. Isaac preferred Esau, because he was fond of game; but Rebekah preferred Jacob. Once, when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the open, famished. He said to Jacob, "Let me gulp down some of that red stuff; I'm starving." (That is why he was called Edom.) But Jacob replied, "First give me your birthright in exchange for it." "Look," Esau said, "I'm on the point of dying, what good will any birthright do me?" But Jacob insisted, "Swear to me first!" So he sold Jacob his birthright under oath. Jacob then gave him some bread and the lentil stew; and Esau cared little for his birthright. This Old Testament story holds significant meaning for all of us. There is the obvious conflict within the family of two brothers who are very different personality types, parents who show partiality toward each of their favorite sons and the way that God allows events to happen as He relates to each of the characters involved. Exploring both the surface story and the deeper implications it has as it relates to our own lives, we can hopefully derive some deeper meaning which God working through the author intends. On the surface, we see a story of rivalry that is typical even in modern times, yet we can also look to some valuable truths that are revealed about how God sees our personal motives and actions through the characters of Jacob and Esau. Gaining an understanding of the characters, their motives and the overall big picture of God's plan, we can better find some spiritual lessons of our own life. Jacob was the third link in God's plan of the patriarchs. In Gn 25:23, the Lord tells Jacob's mother, Rebekah, that she has twins. The Lord tells her that the younger one will overtake the second. The favoritism of the children shows weakness on the part of the parents that can contribute in a large part to the discord between Jacob and Esau. It is no surprise that when parents are in conflict, the entire peace of the family is in jeopardy. Jacob's name means "Grabber." Possibly this shows how he and Esau were in competition from the start. This seems appropriate for two brothers in a small family and their sibling rivalry is understandable in light of the benefits derived from being born first.

A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil

Logically, can Evil and the â€Å"three-O† God co-exist in this universe? The deductive argument from evil says they cannot. In this essay I will explain the argument and analyze why it is valid but unsound. I will do this by discussing fallacious nature of the premise that if God were omnipotent and knew he could prevent the existence of evil without sacrificing some greater good he would then necessarily prevent it.The essay will propose the following evaluation of the deductive argument from Evil: that each premise logically follows from its antecedent, but that the concepts in the premises themselves are not entirely understood and can be refuted. God’s Omni benevolence, specifically, need not incontrovertibly mean the prevention of every evil on earth – not even necessarily natural evil. Furthermore, I will address the purpose of evil and the compatibility of God’s all-good nature with the existence of evil.Concluding finally that the deductive argume nt from evil does not justify a belief in the nonexistence of God, despite the strength of the overall argument. The deductive argument from evil is an explanation for the incompatibility of evil and a â€Å"three-O† God. It answers to the problem of evil, which is the problem of whether or not such a God could logically coexist with evil. This argument both positively states that evil exists in the world, and normatively states that if God existed there would be no evil, therefore God does not exist.As mentioned previously, it deals with the concept of a â€Å"three-O† God; which is to say a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnipotence means here that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible and omniscience denotes that God knows everything that is true. Omni benevolence is the idea that God is perfectly good by nature and that He does no morally bad actions, including the omission to perform action. I accept the first two con cepts as sound, but reject the third since it is implying ideas that may not directly stem from the nature of goodness or the all-good personality of God.However, I will come to this later on in the discussion of why this argument – as it stands – should be rejected on the basis of referential fallacy. In the deductive argument from evil it follows that if God can do anything logically possible and He knows all truth, then knowing He has the power to prevent evil without sacrificing some greater good, by his omnibenevolent nature he will. Evil in this case is not merely the absence of good, but actions and events that cause suffering – particularly natural evil or that which is not originated by man. This is the strongest variant of the argument and thus will be the one analyzed.If the premises in this argument were all true then the conclusion would irrefutable true; making the argument valid and the conclusion false if and only if one or more of the premises a re false. This means that the argument can only be objected on the basis of unsoundness, leading to an examination of the possibility of falsity in the assumed truths of the argument or logical fallacy; namely a consideration of the meaning of Omni benevolence and the implications of a being’s nature. As stated above, the deductive argument from evil holds true that if God is omnibenevolent he will necessarily prevent the existence of evil.Nonetheless, it is not true that because a being has a certain characteristic he therefore must always act in accordance with this characteristic independent of his other attributes or other aspects of the situation. The premise is either asserting that God is not Omnipotent in His choice of whether or not to act in a situation where evil exists; Or it is assuming that God’s goodness directly implies a need for action against anything that is not good, rather than simply stating He will act in accordance to His good nature when He de cides to intervene in human suffering.This brings back the idea of the true meaning of Omni benevolence. If it does denote that God will not omit to perform good actions, then does this not immediately explain how God’s lack of action against evil will lead to an understanding of the nonexistence of God? No. Simply because God does not intervene in evil, doesn’t imperatively mean that God is not choosing to do â€Å"good† through the choice of nonintervention.If God is Omnipotent and can choose to do anything logically possible, then he can also choose to allow evil if it serves a good purpose, not necessarily related to a greater good which explains the existence of all evil, but for other good reasons. Suppose that the greater good that not only enables us to forgive but also to justify all evil on earth was Heaven – a possibility of eternal life in paradise. God knowing he can prevent evil without sacrificing this greater good would do so due to his â €Å"three-O† nature (explained in the deductive argument from evil).Then what kind of evil might He logically allow to exist? Evil that may lead one to choose this eternal kingdom would be a form of evil that would be justified since it brings about a good, not that greater good which allows all evil to exist, but another good that is reasoned in the eyes of God. Eleonore Stump offers this idea as a response to the deductive explanation of the problem of evil, stating that natural evil can humble men and bring us closer to a reflection of the transience of the world.In her retort she explains that these things may bring man to even contemplate God’s existence, and thus possibly placing faith in God and guaranteeing an eternal life in the kingdom of Heaven (Stump, 210). An even further analysis of the issue of misinterpretation of Omni benevolence, or false assumptions about God’s nature, is the claim that the deductive argument from evil contains a referential f allacy; presuming that all words refer to existing things and that their meaning lies in what the refer to.This claim of the unsound nature of the argument asserts that the deductive argument from evil fallaciously assumes the idea of Omni benevolence is defined by existing ideas and worldly concepts of â€Å"all good nature†. It is logically possibly, however, that God’s perfect goodness is beyond man’s understanding and cannot be defined by actions or non-actions relating to the evil of this world. Thus leading to the false conviction that God need necessarily eliminate all evil from the world in order to be inherently good. These forms of counter arguments to the deductive explanation of evil’s non-compatibility with God can be refuted.The following are defenses for the deductive argument that support the primary understanding of God’s Omni benevolence as mandating the elimination of all existing evil. Firstly, Omni benevolence is a description of God’s absolutely good nature and entails that God desires everything that is good. This desire to bring about good things also means a desire to prevent evil things from happening. Hence God’s good nature doesn’t need to necessarily lead to no omission of good actions, but it does lead to the necessary idea that God would mostly want to prevent evil and would do so to fulfill His will and please Himself.Secondly, an argument based on the idea of Heaven is flawed because the existence of eternal life cannot be proven on Earth. Furthermore this is not a greater good that justifies the reality of evil because it is not tangible and does not coexist with the evil that is on here on Earth, right now. Despite these refutes, the three main arguments against the soundness of Omni benevolence ineluctably meaning the elimination of evil still stand. Firstly, God’s good nature can lead Him to desire good things, yet He may allow evil things on Earth in order to m ake us understand what is moral and what is immoral.Without evil then there would be no consequences to immoral actions, therefore no one would be able to distinguish between good or bad (Zacharias, 2013). Moreover, simply because good is correlated with the lack of evil does not necessarily mean good will cause nonexistence of evil. Secondly, heaven need not be a real place, proven by science, in order to posit a valid argument for the existence of God. The argument is that if Heaven exists, then it follows that all evils are justified by this eternal life.Also, a greater good that justifies evil is not required to be a good that is enjoyed in the present time; it may be a good that is to come. In conclusion, the deductive argument from evil is valid, with a logical conclusion following from the premises posed, but it is unsound in its assumptions of the nature of God – the implication of His traits. It makes a flawed link between the Omni benevolent essence of God’s being and a â€Å"necessary† elimination of evil by God. Furthermore, it fallaciously entails both a human conception of â€Å"perfect good† and a human understanding of this notion. A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil Logically, can Evil and the â€Å"three-O† God co-exist in this universe? The deductive argument from evil says they cannot. In this essay I will explain the argument and analyze why it is valid but unsound. I will do this by discussing fallacious nature of the premise that if God were omnipotent and knew he could prevent the existence of evil without sacrificing some greater good he would then necessarily prevent it.The essay will propose the following evaluation of the deductive argument from Evil: that each premise logically follows from its antecedent, but that the concepts in the premises themselves are not entirely understood and can be refuted. God’s Omni benevolence, specifically, need not incontrovertibly mean the prevention of every evil on earth – not even necessarily natural evil. Furthermore, I will address the purpose of evil and the compatibility of God’s all-good nature with the existence of evil.Concluding finally that the deductive argume nt from evil does not justify a belief in the nonexistence of God, despite the strength of the overall argument. The deductive argument from evil is an explanation for the incompatibility of evil and a â€Å"three-O† God. It answers to the problem of evil, which is the problem of whether or not such a God could logically coexist with evil. This argument both positively states that evil exists in the world, and normatively states that if God existed there would be no evil, therefore God does not exist.As mentioned previously, it deals with the concept of a â€Å"three-O† God; which is to say a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnipotence means here that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible and omniscience denotes that God knows everything that is true. Omni benevolence is the idea that God is perfectly good by nature and that He does no morally bad actions, including the omission to perform action. I accept the first two con cepts as sound, but reject the third since it is implying ideas that may not directly stem from the nature of goodness or the all-good personality of God.However, I will come to this later on in the discussion of why this argument – as it stands – should be rejected on the basis of referential fallacy. In the deductive argument from evil it follows that if God can do anything logically possible and He knows all truth, then knowing He has the power to prevent evil without sacrificing some greater good, by his omnibenevolent nature he will. Evil in this case is not merely the absence of good, but actions and events that cause suffering – particularly natural evil or that which is not originated by man. This is the strongest variant of the argument and thus will be the one analyzed.If the premises in this argument were all true then the conclusion would irrefutable true; making the argument valid and the conclusion false if and only if one or more of the premises a re false. This means that the argument can only be objected on the basis of unsoundness, leading to an examination of the possibility of falsity in the assumed truths of the argument or logical fallacy; namely a consideration of the meaning of Omni benevolence and the implications of a being’s nature. As stated above, the deductive argument from evil holds true that if God is omnibenevolent he will necessarily prevent the existence of evil.Nonetheless, it is not true that because a being has a certain characteristic he therefore must always act in accordance with this characteristic independent of his other attributes or other aspects of the situation. The premise is either asserting that God is not Omnipotent in His choice of whether or not to act in a situation where evil exists; Or it is assuming that God’s goodness directly implies a need for action against anything that is not good, rather than simply stating He will act in accordance to His good nature when He de cides to intervene in human suffering.This brings back the idea of the true meaning of Omni benevolence. If it does denote that God will not omit to perform good actions, then does this not immediately explain how God’s lack of action against evil will lead to an understanding of the nonexistence of God? No. Simply because God does not intervene in evil, doesn’t imperatively mean that God is not choosing to do â€Å"good† through the choice of nonintervention.If God is Omnipotent and can choose to do anything logically possible, then he can also choose to allow evil if it serves a good purpose, not necessarily related to a greater good which explains the existence of all evil, but for other good reasons. Suppose that the greater good that not only enables us to forgive but also to justify all evil on earth was Heaven – a possibility of eternal life in paradise. God knowing he can prevent evil without sacrificing this greater good would do so due to his â €Å"three-O† nature (explained in the deductive argument from evil).Then what kind of evil might He logically allow to exist? Evil that may lead one to choose this eternal kingdom would be a form of evil that would be justified since it brings about a good, not that greater good which allows all evil to exist, but another good that is reasoned in the eyes of God. Eleonore Stump offers this idea as a response to the deductive explanation of the problem of evil, stating that natural evil can humble men and bring us closer to a reflection of the transience of the world.In her retort she explains that these things may bring man to even contemplate God’s existence, and thus possibly placing faith in God and guaranteeing an eternal life in the kingdom of Heaven (Stump, 210). An even further analysis of the issue of misinterpretation of Omni benevolence, or false assumptions about God’s nature, is the claim that the deductive argument from evil contains a referential f allacy; presuming that all words refer to existing things and that their meaning lies in what the refer to.This claim of the unsound nature of the argument asserts that the deductive argument from evil fallaciously assumes the idea of Omni benevolence is defined by existing ideas and worldly concepts of â€Å"all good nature†. It is logically possibly, however, that God’s perfect goodness is beyond man’s understanding and cannot be defined by actions or non-actions relating to the evil of this world. Thus leading to the false conviction that God need necessarily eliminate all evil from the world in order to be inherently good. These forms of counter arguments to the deductive explanation of evil’s non-compatibility with God can be refuted.The following are defenses for the deductive argument that support the primary understanding of God’s Omni benevolence as mandating the elimination of all existing evil. Firstly, Omni benevolence is a description of God’s absolutely good nature and entails that God desires everything that is good. This desire to bring about good things also means a desire to prevent evil things from happening. Hence God’s good nature doesn’t need to necessarily lead to no omission of good actions, but it does lead to the necessary idea that God would mostly want to prevent evil and would do so to fulfill His will and please Himself.Secondly, an argument based on the idea of Heaven is flawed because the existence of eternal life cannot be proven on Earth. Furthermore this is not a greater good that justifies the reality of evil because it is not tangible and does not coexist with the evil that is on here on Earth, right now. Despite these refutes, the three main arguments against the soundness of Omni benevolence ineluctably meaning the elimination of evil still stand. Firstly, God’s good nature can lead Him to desire good things, yet He may allow evil things on Earth in order to m ake us understand what is moral and what is immoral.Without evil then there would be no consequences to immoral actions, therefore no one would be able to distinguish between good or bad (Zacharias, 2013). Moreover, simply because good is correlated with the lack of evil does not necessarily mean good will cause nonexistence of evil. Secondly, heaven need not be a real place, proven by science, in order to posit a valid argument for the existence of God. The argument is that if Heaven exists, then it follows that all evils are justified by this eternal life.Also, a greater good that justifies evil is not required to be a good that is enjoyed in the present time; it may be a good that is to come. In conclusion, the deductive argument from evil is valid, with a logical conclusion following from the premises posed, but it is unsound in its assumptions of the nature of God – the implication of His traits. It makes a flawed link between the Omni benevolent essence of God’s being and a â€Å"necessary† elimination of evil by God. Furthermore, it fallaciously entails both a human conception of â€Å"perfect good† and a human understanding of this notion.

Online MBA †Making School Convenient, Part I Essay Example

Online MBA – Making School Convenient, Part I Essay Example Online MBA – Making School Convenient, Part I Essay Online MBA – Making School Convenient, Part I Essay Any working mother will attest to the juggling act that happens on a daily basis. There is the alarm going off seemingly seconds after you close your eyes, the breakfasts to make, the lunches to pack, the homework to check, the papers to sign, the beds to make, the house to clean, the laundry to do, the shopping run to make, the dinner to plan, the appointments to schedule, the after school activities to attend, and – oh yeah – there’s your full time job. As if you didn’t already have one. This is a lot to manage for anyone under any circumstances but when you throw the potential of school into the mix it gets a whole lot more complicated. I was one of these working mothers and while I was lucky enough to have the help of a very hands-on husband he works long hours as well and often we are like ships passing in the night. I had the responsibilities of my job during the day and the responsibilities of home and family in my additional waking hours. There seemed to be little if any time for myself but that was exactly what I needed to carve out if I was going to have any hope of getting my degree. Education has always been important to me but now more than ever because of the competitive and dwindling job market. I had an undergraduate business degree and a good job but I had always wanted to pursue my masters. This would have been impossible in years past simply because there was no way I was ever going to find the time in my day to commute to school and sit in class. The logistics just didn’t work. But now, with the potential of working through an online MBA program school could finally be a convenience I could a fford. More to come†¦