Research design refers to the specific type of study that you will conduct. Research design is normally consistent with one’s philosophical worldview and the methodological approach the researcher chooses. In this case, you are using a quantitative methodology. As we have discussed in this course, quantitative research designs can be experimental and non-experimental. You will be using a non-experimental design that can include descriptive statistics, correlational or causal-comparative research methods.Research methods refer to specific procedures selected based on the chosen design. This is where you will provide detail on how you collected and analyzed your data. For quantitative methodologies, research methods can be quite detailed and require that attention be paid to recruitment, sampling, sampling frame, sample size, surveys, pilot tests, observations, data collection, data analysis, statistical procedures, data interpretation, coding, validity, reliability, generalizability, reporting, etc.For this assignment, you will develop the research design for the Sun Coast project, utilizing this Unit III template to complete your assignment.Your Unit III research design submission should include the below elements.
Research Methodology: Describe and justify the choice of research methodology and why it was most suitable to solve the problems. Be sure to compare and contrast this choice with the design that was not selected.
Research Design: Explain whether the research design is exploratory, causal, or descriptive. Provide the rationale for the choice.
commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the ‘righteous Lord’”. The idea is that what makes God good is his omniscience and that what he wills is well-considered and prudent, but something cannot be prudent if there are no values on which to decide what to command, and therefore God’s commands are necessarily arbitrary. An attitude towards God which insists on his following because that is what we ‘ought’ to do, would seem in the way Kant insisted to be making morality prior to God. Yet, the proponent of this second horn, that God commands what is good, holds a position that seems similarly tenuous. The central problem with this approach is that by limiting what God can command to what is already good, one places a restriction on God’s power, which contradicts his omnipotence. A defence of such a proposition might broadly resemble this: moral truths are necessarily true, not being able to do the logically impossible is no restriction of power, no less than being able to make a bachelor a married man is. Under this objectivist framework, one argues that “moral judgements such as that an action x is a right action or that it is morally better than y, or that actions of type A are never morally good, are statements which are true or false”4 (4 The Coherence of Theism, R. Swinburne, Chapter 11, p. 207.). Indeed, that is not to say that there are no times when two choices are morally level, merely that sometimes this is not the case- some lifestyles are indeed morally better or worse than others. Thus statements affirming such an action have a truth value. By extension, “an omniscient person […] will know of any action, the characteristics of which are fully set out (e.g. that it is done by a person of such-and-such a kind in such-and-such circumstances), whether or not that action is morally good or bad”5 (ibid., p. 208). Thus God will necessarily do those actions he sees as good and avoid those which are bad and in doing so will still be omnipotent. His unflinching commitment to moral law can best be seen when we imagine the opposite. A God who “does not care to support with his will the moral principles that we believe are true” thus either “opposes some of them, or does not care enough about some of them to act on them”6 (‘Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief’, R. Adams, Part 4.). Indeed, as Adams explains, “if we really believed there is a God like that, who understands so much and yet disregards some or all of our moral principles, it would be extremely difficult for us to continue to regard those principles with the respect that we believe is due them”7 (ibid). Given we believe that we ought to pay them respect, there is a great moral disadvantage to belief in an immoral or amoral God. There are, of course, problems with the second hornist’s perspective. First, in creating the world, is it not possible that God also created logic and, with it, logical and moral necessities? That is, while we>GET ANSWER