...written by David Trahair. The aim of this review will be to give a detailed outlined of each chapter, a personal review as well as a conclusion. This book outlines many ways to save money as well as how to be efficient in terms of spending and saving. The author attempts to prove that every person should try to save in order to retire comfortably while advocating the principal of a “cash cow”. Meaning an asset that continues to produce income over its entire lifespan. Examples of a cash cow can be summed up to a dairy cow, meaning that even after the dairy cow is purchased and paid for, it continues to provide income for the owner in the form of milk. The book also attempts to reflect on different investments products such as Tax Free Savings Accounts and RRSP’s and the difference (Pro’s and Con’s) associated with each of these. This book also outlines the difference between home ownership, renting and condos. Each of these residential properties has significant Pro’s and Con’s that should be considered by all citizens that are actively looking to purchase a new residential property. Chapter 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Chapter one describes the relationship as well as the differences between the term “Cash cow”, “Cash pigs” and “Jackpots”. The Author identifies each term by giving examples and scenarios. During the duration of this book, the word “cash cow” is defined as “ A business, product...
Words: 2888 - Pages: 12
...Ted Honderich Determinism Vs Free Will Psychology 101-1322 Professor: James Pattison By: Belinda Bielicki July 2, 2011 Determinism versus Free Will: The most important and the oldest philosophical question is perhaps that of free will and determinism. Do people have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? Ted Honderich defined determinism as the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. "Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity." Determinism is used by philosophers to account for some of the choices and actions that cause or create the effects of causal sequences; these sequences raise questions about the freedom of the choices and actions. Determinists believe our decisions are controlled by previous exposure to differing situations and environments and that each and every one of our actions is caused by a specific prior action or cause. (a occurs because of b, b occurs because of c..etc) In the belief of a determinist, man is no exception to this rule and therefore we are not "free" due to our actions being a result of a previous cause. If we are to dispute that this in fact is true, than we as human beings cannot be held responsible for our actions, as we have no control over them, they are automatic. However this is not the case, when a human commits an act, they are held responsible for...
Words: 620 - Pages: 3
...omnipotent and omnibenevolent then why does evil exist (Sherry)? The problem of evil causes us to look at the traditional characteristics of God and to analytically assess our suppositions about evil itself. If our God is a good, all powerful and just God as many people believe, then why would such a God allow evil to exist? This problem also brings to light questions about what is considered to be evil, whether it is moral evil committed by man or natural evil such as earthquakes, hurricanes and famine (Sherry). There are several arguments that have developed in reaction to the problem of evil that was suggested by David Hume. One such argument which is known as the free will defense claims that evil is solely caused by human beings, who must have the opportunity to choose to do evil if they are to have free will (Sherry). Another argument which was proposed by Richard Swinburne where he claims that natural evil can exist as a means for humans to learn, mature and adapt (Sherry). These theological arguments often include appeals for belief in life after death by not only resisting the urge to do evil deeds will bring rewards in the afterlife but...
Words: 2021 - Pages: 9
...of Free Will Theodicies: A Reply to Tierno” Department of Philosophy, Monash University, Spohia, Vol. 42, No. 2, October 2003 Theo 525 LUO (fall 2013) Systematic Theology I Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Jeremy W. Allexon (ID# 25923739) September 22, 2013 Introduction The purpose of this piece is to conduct an analysis and re-butt Joel Tierno’s argument “that free will only accounts for choices that issue in evil” But fail to account for evil choices. 1 (Trakakis) The paper begins by breaking down Tierno’s argument in logical fashion A+B=C. As he is breaking down the argument Mr. Trakakis ask a series of questions and does not outright disagree with Tierno but provides another prospective. Brief Summary According to free will theodicists the existence of moral evil is permitted by God so as to preserve human free will, without which a host of significant goods would be unattainable.2 Joel Thomas Tierno ask if such ideas satisfactorily explain and justify God's approval of moral evil 3 & 4 Tierno according to Trakakis fails to understand free will theodicists. 5 Which he goes on to describe well probing Tierno’s argument. Trakakis partitions the piece into sections “Tierno’s ‘Adequacy Argument’ Against Free Will Theodicies” “The Inadequacy of Tierno’s ‘Adequacy Argument’, and ‘The Intelligibility Question’ 6 Critical Interaction Mr. Trakakis talking about two schools of thought. The first one being the Adequacy Argument or that free will...
Words: 672 - Pages: 3
...that this process of natural selection essentially has nothing to do with freedom. He believed that it is nature that governs, through its various processes, the makeup, strength, and survival potential of the various species, and that the species that emerge as dominant are determined by the stage along the evolutionary scale at which they appear”. In a paragraph following, both authors reckon: “A more modern and sophisticated version of this theory is concerned with genetic makeup, especially that of human beings. None of us has any say over the identity of our parents, from where we inherit our genes; and because our genes determine so much of our makeup—our sex, mental potential, and eye, hair, and skin color—how can we be said to be free in any real sense of the word?” (Thiroux et al. 93-94) This is classic tale of a wolf in sheep’s clothing where as the wolf being determinism attacking naturalism, the sheep. I have to believe that deep down that Darwin and most Darwinians for that matter that natural selection was and is not the only cause for evolution. There also are some scientists and philosophers for that matter whom concur that our human genotypes do constrain our...
Words: 589 - Pages: 3
...Calvinism and Arminianism Abel Bermea, Jr. Liberty University ENG /101 August 29, 2006 The purpose of this paper is to compare two theological positions, namely Calvinism and Arminianism. These are two positions on either side of the debate concerning free will and predestination. There are those who believe that we have the free will to love/obey God or hate/deny him, and there are those who believe that God, in his sovereignty, has predetermined who will be saved and who will not be saved and neither group is willing to budge. Both sides claim to have the support of Scripture, and both have specific verses they will undoubtedly point to as an "I told you so." The problem is that both sides appear, on some levels at least, to be right. The question that can be answered from a comparison of these two views is this: Which one of these positions offers the more sensible, biblical account? Let’s look at a simple syllogism that sums up the argument of the Arminian (free will advocate). Premise 1: God desires that all men be saved. Premise 2: All men are not saved. Conclusion: Man, by exercising his will, has interfered with God's desire. Calvinists agree with the first premise, and even the second premise. But they come to a very different conclusion. Here is what the Calvinist argues: Premise 1: God desires that all men be saved. Premise 2: All men are not saved. Conclusion: It is not God's chief desire that all men be saved; he has another desire which is stronger, and...
Words: 1229 - Pages: 5
...We most often think that an agent’s free actions are those actions that she does as a result of exercising her free will. Consider a woman, Allison, who is contemplating a paradigmatic free action, such as whether or not to walk her dog. Allison might say to herself, “I know I should walk the dog—he needs the exercise. And while I don’t really want to walk him since it is cold outside, I think overall the best decision to make is that I should take him for a walk.” Thus, we see that one reason we care about free will is that it seems necessary for free action—Allison must first decide, or choose, to walk the dog before she actually takes him outside for his walk. If we assume that human actions are those actions that result from the rational capacities of humans, we then see that the possibility of free action depends on the possibility of free will: to say that an agent acted freely is minimally to say that the agent was successful in carrying out a free volition or choice. Various philosophers have offered just such an account of freedom. Thomas Hobbes suggested that freedom consists in there being no external impediments to an agent doing what he wants to do: “A free agent is he that can do as he will, and forbear as he will, and that liberty is the absence of external impediments.” In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume thought that free will (or "liberty," to use his term) is simply the “power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination...
Words: 554 - Pages: 3
...The Problem of Evil: Free Will vs. Faith Sheri Rinker Walden University 23-Mar-16 The Problem of Evil: Free Will vs. Faith "I don't understand why people believe in God when there is so much pain and suffering in the world." This is a statement often heard and often contemplated. We will look at the notion of the meaning of this statement and postulate from the Free Will View. This view states that evil and suffering are the results of the misuse of human free will. First, let us look at the statement that people believe in God whilst there is pain in suffering all around us. When Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his great Summa Theologica, he could find only two objections to the existence of God. One of the two objections is the apparent ability of natural science to explain everything in our experience without God, and the other is the problem of evil. For Aquinas, God's goodness is beyond all definitions of the good, and we cannot hold God to account by our moral standards. Aquinas's understanding of morality makes us absolutely responsible for our planned activities, and it allows no excuse regarding an evil force manipulating our wills (Kreeft, 2016). Looking at the free will view, it states that evil and suffering are the results of the misuse of human free will. If according to St. Tomas Aquinas that it is us and not God because God gave us freedom of that will, then would that not mean that God is not omnipotent? It must be argued that it is better on the...
Words: 519 - Pages: 3
...determined by prior events. This is a logical statement because a choice we make today could affect the choice we would make tomorrow. For example, a levels are picked accordingly due to prior grades we received in GCSE. Aquinas’s cause and effect theory is applicable to this notion of everything have an efficient cause: nothing can be efficient or cause itself. However, despite this approach making total sense as it is an intelligible to suggest that prior events do effect the choices we make today, resulting in a restriction, resulting with us not having complete freedom over the choices but over the outcome to act ethically. This is where some might see this theory’s flaws, for example the case of Loeb and Leopold could be taken into account as they were let off the death penalty to life imprisonment because...
Words: 1488 - Pages: 6
...only is it a problem for Christians, who want to provide a defense for their faith, but it is also a problem for Christians, who being faced with suffering and pain on account of evil, and without knowing the thoughts or intentions of God, wish to reconcile the two ideas together. In spite of Mackie’s Logical Argument of Evil proving, some would say, that it is not possible for both God and evil to exist, I believe that it is in fact possible that they exist simultaneously. My reason for believing so stems from the Free-Will Defense, coupled with a deeper understanding and more clearly defined description of the attributes of God and how they work together. I will also highlight scripture that incorporates both the existence of evil as well as the existence of God, who remedies the evil into a greater good, reiterating a point made in premise 4 of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. In order to walk you through my thought process, I will start with a basic outline of Mackie’s Logical Argument, as well as include why this is a problem for theists. I will then define some ambiguous terms in his argument, and shed some light on the culture-saturated definitions of Christian lingo used in the argument. And finally, I will present the Free-Will Defense and show how this paired with the previous information, along with accounts of evil in scripture, work hand in hand to point us to a more clear understanding of the coexistence of God and evil. J.L. Mackie’s Logical Argument for the problem...
Words: 2028 - Pages: 9
...A person is held responsible for an act if that act was directly caused by an intentional action based on a willful, informed choice, with full knowledge of the wrongness or rightness of the act, and its consequences. This means that as long as we are fully aware of our actions and the expectant results; we should be held morally responsible. If our actions are pre-determined by the past and/or other factors outside ourselves; and we have free will, this means we can choose to or not to perform some actions. This implies that there exists other option(s), but we ourselves decide which one we choose to perform. In other words, we are not compelled or forced to take a certain action; we could have chosen a different option and we have considered...
Words: 297 - Pages: 2
...continue trying to do or achieve something that is difficult. The act of finding out or calculating something, the act of officially deciding something. Socrates: What is the definition of free will? Tony: The definition of free will is a philosophical word of an art for a distinct sort of contents of logical agents to choose a direction of action between numerous options. Socrates: Do you agree that every event has an explanatory cause? Tony: Yes! I really would take delight in thinking that most circumstances do not embrace pass clarification, all functions don’t have an explanatory motive, and how can we interpret the main events and how they may approach, because they don’t just come about by chance. Socrates: How do you define events? Tony: Events are things that happen or are regarded as happening, such as birthdays, graduations, weddings, births and deaths. Socrates: How do you define explanatory causes? Tony: Explanatory causes are a characteristic that symbolizes how a person account to themselves why they undergo a precise transaction, whether it be definite or nugatory. Socrates: Do you agree that every choice or event would has an explanatory cause? Tony: Yes, we’d all relish the fact that at times a few options or functions are purposeless therefore leading to our free will. Socrates: How do you define human choices, how do you define human event, are they different? Tony: I believe that there are options for human choices, and that we have the energy...
Words: 342 - Pages: 2
...There is much thought about whether or not we hold free will within us, but isn’t it true that we are freely questioning if we have free will at this very moment? If we have the ability to question free will, in which we are freely questioning, does that make us free? In Boethius’s, The Consolation of Philosophy, Book V presents the problem of freedom and God. Boethius refers to freedom as “freedom of the will” and God’s divine foreknowledge as “God’s Providence”. Boethius then presents a sequence of arguments that state that freedom of the will and divine Providence are incompatible. Boethius’s first proposition is, “If God knows the future, then the future is determined,” (PHL 150 Discussion, September 16, 2015). Thus, anything God’s foresees happening, must happen. Boethius is also trying to explain that God essentially foreknows the future eternally. Thus, God knows all the actions, wishes, and desires of mankind. Then his second proposition is that, “If the future is determined, then we don’t have free...
Words: 713 - Pages: 3
...and encourage us to act selflessly and ethically. Eventhough, we have the ability to exercise our free will in all manner of ways and make choices, do we always have free will ? I believe freedom to be the ability to make your own choices, which are not influenced by anyone else’s opinions or decisions, when faced with either a difficult or easy decision. Some philosophers believe that our ability to make free choices is an illusion which means that we are not free at all. Others state that there is something else beyond our understanding that may cause our actions to be determined. These theories can be linked to Determinism. Determinism says that there are laws that exist outside of our control that cause the things that happen-laws such as gravity. Scientific laws determine all our actions based on what has happened before. Previous events have consequences that may be determined and which in turn will cause more consequences. This can be linked to Aristotle’s teachings which stated that every action has some sort of cause and therefore an effect. Therefore we cannot help our actions when they have already been decided for us. In contrast, from a religious viewpoint there are mixed theories. The traditional Judeo-Christian view is that human beings are free, autonomous agents, responsible for their actions. A perfect example of this is Adam and Eve who exercise free will in choosing to eat the...
Words: 1784 - Pages: 8
...and Buddha as comparison philosophers. Kant and Buddha have similar thoughts, one in particular is “Ding an sich”, the thing itself. Kant tells us that form is created by our body (mind), as did Buddha. When we see a form we see areas of black separated from white. Buddha tells us that they are one and the same, connected and that the form is created by us. Buddha tells us that our bodies may die, but the actions we committed whilst inhabiting those bodies continue on after the death. If freewill was a more tangible element, then the cause of the action could be stopped by the freedom of our will, curiously though Buddha also said that everything was dependant on something. How can something be free and dependant at the same time? Kant didn’t exactly give a viewpoint on free will except to say that it was an illusion that was a necessity to mankind in order to live. (Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy). Buddha and Kant agreed on basic ideas about things, I think that Kant and Buddha argue from similar standpoints, with...
Words: 747 - Pages: 3