Get help from the best in academic writing.

You will identify a trend in Information Systems and Technology supported by three pieces of research to support why

You will identify a trend in Information Systems and Technology supported by three pieces of research to support why you think it is a trend.

A trend is defined as “A general direction in which something is developing or changing.” This is not a new product but rather a trend in the overall environment. For example (YOU CAN’T USE THIS ONE) Trend: Cyber Security is a growing job field. Evidence- research on the number of attacks, growth in Cyber Security programs at universities, U.S. formation of Cyber Command.

Your document should be 2-3 pages and INCLUDE CITATIONS in MLA or APA format.
Proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation are required.

One of the most interesting things I’ve learned as an economics major

One of the most interesting things I’ve learned as an economics major is the history of economic thought. The field has evolved and changed over time, and understanding this history can help you better understand the ideas that are being discussed today. The same is true for other social sciences. History is an important tool for understanding the past and present, and it can be a great way to learn about yourself and the world around you.

The economic theories of Thomas Malthus are a good example of this. Malthus was an 18th-century Englishman who was known as the “father of modern economics”. He is best known for his book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population”, in which he argued that human populations grow geometrically, while the size of the food supply grows arithmetically. This meant that population growth outstripped growth in food, and as a result the human population would inevitably grow too large for the food supply. He argued that population grows in a geometric progression, while the amount of food grows in an arithmetic progression. This meant that the food supply can only support so many people, while the population continues to grow.

The economic theories that were developed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis are some of the most important theories ever developed in the field of economics. Unfortunately, they’re also some of the most difficult theories to understand. Because modern economic theories are complex and rely on a huge number of theoretical concepts and mathematical equations, they’re often difficult to understand or even to define.

One of the most important economic theories to develop in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis is called neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a theory that argues that the economy should be controlled by a small group of powerful individuals and businesses, rather than the government or a larger group of people. The theory is based on the belief that the free market is the best way to organize an economy, and that the government should keep its hands off of the economy. This essentially means that the government should do as little as possible in the way of economic policy, and that the role of the government in the economy should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.

Economics is a human science that studies the allocation of scarce resources in response to scarcity. The field is often taught and studied as if it were a single, unified subject, with one right answer to the question “how should we allocate scarce resources in an efficient manner?” However, economics is the result of the active, ongoing, and reflexive interaction between ideas, facts, and theories over time. This means that the past influences the present and that economists should actively reflect on how past theories and facts have shaped their present understanding of the economy.

The study of economics is often defined by its focus on the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. This is a critical insight that has been critical to the development of the discipline, but it has also meant that economic theories, models, and predictions are often described as “realistic” or “grounded in reality” even when they rely on abstractions or idealizations that are in some sense a departure from reality. Even models that are described as “abstract” or “idealized” are usually grounded in some way in the past: current theories and models build on the work of previous theorists and researchers, and the same is often true of current policies.

2 A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil Name Institution Course Date

You will identify a trend in Information Systems and Technology supported by three pieces of research to support why Writing Assignment Help 2

A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil





A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil

The challenge of harmonizing the reality of wickedness with God is known as the problem of evil. According to an argument from sin, the existence of depravity and such a God is doubtful or impossible. Theodicy typically describes attempts to demonstrate the opposite. The concept of immortality expands to nonhuman life forms, including animal suffering resulting from natural disasters and human abuse. Augustine uses the devil’s problem to demonstrate a conceptual framework in the cohabitation of God and evil, besides considering the wickedness in the world and perfect God is possible. Furthermore, he supports arguments justifying God’s avoidance in preventing corruption. This paper focuses on theodicies, Augustine’s views concerning the theodicies, and a theodicy criticized the least.

The term “evil” is a vague term that describes what we consider morally reprehensible, something that generates pain and suffering when perpetrated on a person. However, is it true that an ‘evil’ act performed by one who has been otherwise decent qualifies them as ‘evil’? ‘Here are numerous scenarios in which own set of circumstances, and repercussions commit evil deeds (Perry, 1978). For instance, many soldiers engaged in the death of large numbers of Jews at Auschwitz, although it is improbable that most men were wrong. The behaviors may have been terrible, but the guards’ responsibility normalized them. Because they were doing a task in the eyes, the issue of whether or not people should label them as wicked is unanswerable.

Moral evil is a more straightforward difficulty for a theist to deal with than natural evil because the abuse of free choice causes it. However, they still have to defend the presence of Natural calamity. If there is a God who formed the universe from the ground up, nothing is outside. God can remain the source of sorrow and suffering because he is in charge (Perry, 1978). Natural disasters such as storms are frequently the source of a man doing wrong, including looting. Thus, justifying both sorts of evil may confront theists.

While it is an issue for adherents in that it questions God’s stature, it also causes challenges in different manners. It appears to be a conceptual issue since it forces the practitioner to recognize contradictory truths incompatible as a multifaceted challenge. Evil presents itself in a variety of ways, necessitating multiple answers. The dilemma has proven difficult because it is going away anytime soon. Evil and misery are objective facts nearly impossible to ignore (Stark, 1982). It is challenging to justify God’s acceptance of corruption, although there have been numerous theodicies produced those present compelling reasons. A prophecy is a philosophy that explains the reason for God to permit wrong while leaving the characteristics of Classical Theism unqualified. Augustine’s and Irenaeus’ are two of them.

Since its development, Augustine’s theodicy has significantly influenced many scholars, and it aims to explain either moral or natural evil. As per Augustine, this same faultless God created a perfect universe free of evil and suffering. According to Stark (1982), God is not accountable for the presence of sin because it is a deprivation of sound rather than a substance. To emphasize his point, he cites the analogy of blindness, which is neither being an entity, it is a lack of sight. According to Augustine, evil is caused by spirits and people who have willfully rebelled against God to support free will. He claims that in a created universe, evil is necessary because just the eternal maker can be perfect, and his creatures are subject to change.

Natural evil, according to Augustine, occurs as a penalty for everyone as all seminally engaged in Adam’s original sin at the moment of commitment. Natural evil is our punishment for destroying the human action that restores natural order. For these reasons, God is right not to intervene, and some savior, through Christ, emphasizes His mercy. Although God may justify God in condemning all to hell for committing the Sinful Nature, the reality of God’s goodness is demonstrated that some individuals go to heaven.

The theodicy of Augustine has several significant positives, as seen in its widespread coverage. Many people back up his assertion that evil is simply a lack of virtue. Instead, he views authentic existence as “a gap beyond that is versus what ought to be.” To criticize would imply that God would have done much more than he did, which would be incorrect. Who can determine how substantially more ought to have comprised? Augustine’s view on evil resulting from free will also has confirmation.

Despite its merits, Augustine’s theodicy includes several flaws that must be addressed, including logical, physiological, and ethical issues. His view of hell is challenging because hell is inherent to God and the universe. In establishment before the world got manifested, implying that God had foreseen and approved knowing the universe would go wrong. B.C Johnson offers his conceptual thoughts on the origins of misery and the loss of a perfect world that is contradicted. According to Johnson (2010), it remains true whether evil is denied or not. Hence it is theoretically difficult for it to come out of nothing.

Consequently, it implies that sin links to God and that he presumably neither founded the universe perfect nor allowed it to stutter. Another logical flaw in this teleology is the potential to conduct evil and disobey God in a “perfect” universe. There can be no consciousness of morality in an ideal world. God was the only one who knew about them.

The concept of evolution in the present world causes scientific challenges; the thought of a flawless planet harmed by people precludes evolution. Furthermore, Augustine mentions the Paradise of Eden in the theodicy, which is difficult to accept in light of evolution. The idea of humans always having it is biologically impossible for Adam’s sins to be seminally present. As a result, we are not to fault for Original Sin. Augustine’s theodicy eventually fails, as seen when we compare the strengths to the objections.

Irenaeus’ theodicy also presents a solid response to whether God allows evil to exist. According to Irenaeus, God’s aim in humankind in his image was to be created when the world was created, but humanity cannot be made perfect. Therefore, they were to evolve via open choice. It was consequently essential for God to give us a will and for us to be able to choose what we want to do. As a result, the ability to rebel against him (Stark, 1982). We would never be able to reach God’s likeness if he did not allow it because Irenaeus claims that it takes willing cooperation. The basic system establishes in such a way that humans may damage one another, which they did, resulting in pain. Yet, God never jeopardizes our freedom by eliminating evil. According to Irenaeus, God will eventually conquer wickedness and misery, and everyone will be transformed into God’s age and live in heaven. Thus, the excuses and transitory sin, which, if followed by Irenaeus, allow for the comprehension of good.

Per this theodicy, humankind makes imperfectly to be able to rebel against Christ, and men had to be made at a range from God to choose whether or not to trust in him on their own. That would be no free will if we knew he was there. Johnson coined the term “epistemic distance” to describe this phenomenon.’ If God did not divide us from humanity, we would know he was being honest, and we would be able to live a decent, virtuous life because we would understand it was to our advantage. Otherwise, it would not be absolute goodness. Humans cannot be conceived in a paradise because otherwise, traits like courage would be impossible to obtain, and progress would be impossible because virtue and wickedness would be indistinguishable from one another (Perry, 1978).

The theodicy justifies natural evil because it is what gives rise to the universe a well-suited solution. For three reasons, the Contemporary Amendments, according to theodicy, everyone’s ultimate objective is eternity, and a fate in paradise is the only reason for the globe’s suffering. Moreover, God’s objective would be unfulfilled if life ended in death because we would not have achieved our aim of becoming like God. At the same time, wicked acts perpetrate in various conditions for various persons. Someone mistreated as a child is far more prone to be cruel as a grownup because they are habituated to this and have grown accustomed to it.

Ultimately, both Irenaeus’ and Augustine’s theodicies have relevant criticisms. For example, ‘everyone is going to the afterlife’ contradicts religious books, rendering it meaningless. Then again, why bother with a moral life if you’re going to heaven anyway? It also takes away the desire to grow into God’s kindness, which Irenaeus saw as essential. Another critique is the degree of pain that must be endured to adapt to the new environment. To ‘soul-making,’ for example. Is it true that the Holocaust was unavoidable? Finally, individuals can state that suffering cannot express passion, backed up by those who believe it is unjustifiable to harm someone who can assist them.

To summarize, none of these concepts is pure, though Irenaeus is the more powerful. Whereas Augustine does not allow for confidence in changes, Irenaeus succeeds, and where Augustine is unable to offer a rational justification for that genesis of evil, Irenaeus does. It is also well-known for its ideas on free will, similar to Augustine’s.


Johnson, B. C. (2010). The atheist debater’s handbook. Prometheus Books.

Perry, J. (1978). A dialogue on personal identity and immortality. Hackett Publishing.

Stark, J. C. (1982). The problem of evil: Augustine and Ricoeur. Augustinian Studies, 13, 111-121.

4 The Media Report On Gun Control and Gun Crime Student’s Name


The Media Report On Gun Control and Gun Crime

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation




The Media Report On Gun Control and Gun Crime

The United States has solitarily maintained the insane gun culture policy among all the civilised Western nations. The law has allowed a huge population to possess handguns, rifles and shotguns. However, the amount of gun violence in the nation has increased over the years. Surprisingly, the same people who support the gun policy have set diverse commissions to examine gun right severally (Richard, 1970). The number of murderers, professional criminals, and political terrorists increase daily because gun policy allows people to own guns legally. The truth is that the few people who legally own firearms take advantage and use them in illegal manners.

It’s ironic how intelligent Americans and gun owners claim that firearms help protect individuals from danger. If owning a firearm is individual protection and democracy where citizen rights are well-practised to protect the population, which is laughable compared to other nation democracies such as England. Astonishingly it’s impossible to laugh, considering how the gun policy has cost the United States human lives over the years, and the number increases daily (Richard, 1970). The availability of guns among the population has contributed to increased homicides, armed robberies and gun accidents instead of reducing them.

Although most individuals blame the United States social setting for increased death due to social temperament, carelessness and wildness: Which, in turn, result in disagreement among individuals and create wars and hatred, which later cause death. The intensity of people’s ethnicity and racial mixture also has greatly contributed to the increased death rate in the nation. Still, loose gun control cut across since it provides easier means of killing one another. A nation with such a complicated and temperament social setting needs stricter rules over weapons such as guns. Thus Americans pay significantly due to the inability to control firearms or quite the gun policy.


Richard Hofstadter, (October, 1970) America as a Gun Culture