What is the Best Way to Write a Sample Essay For Your Job Application?

What is the Best Way to Write a Sample Essay For Your Job Application?How should you write a sample essay for your job application? In fact, you need to create a sample essay in a way that will make an impact on the first page of the application. It is important that you emphasize professional presence and influence with your paper. The sample essay that you create must display the traits of a professional resume.Firstly, you need to create a paper that can have the reader see the written word as one might see it. You need to make the reader feel that the paper is one that is professional in nature. Some papers may have professional qualities but they will not speak the English language like you or me would.It is important to use the paper to give your reader a glimpse of the professional way you work in and out of the office. They should be able to have a feeling that you are one who works with integrity and takes pride in what you do. By doing this, the reader will come to realize that you are someone they should hire and want to hire. Make sure that you emphasize how you have been given the chance to apply for the job as a professional.The next step in writing a professional paper is to write in a way that will show that you have excellent writing skills. Avoid using grammar errors that will make the reader question your skills. Do not use articles that contain incorrect grammar.Use all of the spaces available in the paper. Do not be afraid to include as much information as possible in your paper. You want to be able to take advantage of every space and allow yourself to be seen as someone who has been given a chance to be interviewed by a company.It is also important to make sure that you do not try to oversell yourself. When you use big words, you want to make sure that they do not overpower the content of the paper. Make sure that you do not show off your writing ability to the best of your ability.When you are applying for a job that is actually in the b uilding, you want to highlight a strong point about your background. You can do this by describing in detail your years at a college. You can also use these specific details to get inside the reader's head.Once you have created a sample essay, you need to make sure that you do not make the mistake of making it too general. The last thing you want to do is to tell a story about your past experience. Instead, focus on your work experience and how it will impact your future.

Existence of God Essay Example

Existence of God Essay There are many types of Cosmological argument, but it is better to concentrate on a small number of them and to probe their intricacies rather than to be content with general summaries. They all share many features in common in particular, they argue from the world to God and are thus a posteriori. In the Timaeus, Plato uses a Cosmological argument to arrive at the Demiurge, but it is Aristotles argument that has had most influence because it was used by St.Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle argued to an unmoved mover. This unmoved mover was not a personal God like the Christian God, and it had no religious significance rather, it should be seen as the ultimate cause of the Cosmos. Plotinus, in the third century, modified Platos argument, although again did not arrive at the Christian God. Plotinus God created the world from himself (and not from nothing) by a necessary unfolding of himself God had no choice. Plotinus God was also beyond all description and NEEDED to create in order to bec ome conscious (Process theology draws on this view). The Islamic and Jewish philosophers tended to be in advance of Christian philosophers in the early middle ages. Alfarabi and Avicenna put forward distinctive proofs, including the significant KALAM argument. The Jewish thinker Maimonides put forward an argument which led to a God similar to that of Aquinas he claimed that the I AM of the Old Testament has absolute existence, and that He alone exists necessarily and absolutely. AQUINAS ARGUMENT =================== We will write a custom essay sample on Existence of God specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Existence of God specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Existence of God specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Aquinas Five Ways are the cornerstone of Catholic Natural Theology because they claim to show that language about God successfully refers. However, Aquinas was not creating new arguments but using old ones; for example, Aquinas Fifth Way owed much to Platos argument in the Timaeus. In the Five Ways, Aquinas argues: 1. FROM MOTION 2. FROM EFFICIENT CAUSES 3. FROM CONTINGENCY AND NECESSITY 4. FROM GRADES OF PERFECTION IN THINGS, and 5. FROM DESIGN. It is not certain that Aquinas intended his arguments to establish the existence of God independent of faith. Lubor Veleckys book1, argues that Aquinas did not intend the arguments as proofs rather, he wished to show existing believers that it was rational to believe in God; he was not trying to convince atheists by philosophic argument. Velecky points out that Aquinas was already a firm believer, and wrote for a world which accepted Aristotelian categories he would never have expected the arguments (which he treats very briefly) to have had the weight they have subsequently been given. However, it is not necessarily the case that Velecky is right; it may well be held that Aquinas DID intend to produce proofs and, indeed, that his whole system depends on their success. The most interesting of Aquinas Five Ways is probably the third the argument from contingency. My summary of it is as follows: 1. Everything can be or not be 2. If this is so, given infinite time, at some time everything would not be 3. If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it 4. Therefore something must necessarily exist (NOTE MOST CAREFULLY that this is not God) 5. Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused 6. The series of necessary things cannot go on to infinity as there would then be no explanation for the series 7. Therefore there must be some Being having of itself its own necessity 8. This is what everyone calls God. It is important to note that the overall aim of Aquinas arguments is not to move back in a temporal sequence rather, they seek to establish DEPENDENCE, the dependence of the world on God now. Aquinas believed that there was no way of establishing that the Universe had a beginning in time this was a revealed doctrine. He did, however, believe that his arguments established the need for the world to be DEPENDENT on God. Aquinas arguments arrive at That which is necessary to explain the Universe or that which is necessary to explain motion, causation or contingency. We do not know what God is, but whatever God is, God is that which is necessary to explain the Universes existence. There is a jump, however, from whatever this is, to describing it as God. THIS GAVE RISE TO PASCALS QUOTE The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob not the God of the philosophers. Aquinas ends his proofs by saying This is what everyone calls God, but this can be challenged. Aquinas Prime Mover appears radically different from the God of most Christians. If we said that God was whatever sustains the universe in existence, we would be somewhere near to what Aquinas was saying but this whatever may be some way from Yahweh. It is important to recognize that Aquinas ends up with God as de re necessary necessary in and of himself and cause of himself. This is NOT meant to be the same as de dicto necessity (logical necessity, based on the way words are used for instance All spinsters are female) which applies in the Ontological argument. It is necessary to be clear on the difference between de re and de dicto necessity. The Ontological argument starts with de dicto necessity2 and attempts to arrive at de re necessity3. The de re necessary God is wholly simple. The crux of the notion of Divine simplicity is the identity of essence and existence in God God is not something that just happens to exist, Gods essence includes existence. God cannot be a material being because God: cannot have any intrinsic accidental properties: cannot, therefore, change in any way; and cannot be an individual of any given species or genus. Hence an absolutely necessary being does not have a nature in any straightforward sense at all.4 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM (1290 -1350) raised at least three problems which go to the heart of the Cosmological argument: 1) Ockham challenged Aquinas view that an infinite series was impossible. He maintained that causes could be ORIGINATING CAUSES and not CONSERVING CAUSES in other words, one cause could bring something else into existence but not then have to conserve its existence. A mother is responsible for bringing a baby into the world but not for retaining the baby in existence once it has grown. This is important as Aquinas wishes to establish that the world depends on God NOW; God did not just create the universe and then leave (Aquinas is not a deist). 2) Ockham queried whether there was any necessary link between cause and effect. This was the same point which was made by Hume centuries later the Cosmological argument depends on there being a necessary link between cause and effect. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable link to make, except that some scientists today claim that there are uncaused causes that certain fundamental particles come into existence without any explanation. One problem with this view is whether it is a true statement, or simply a reflection of our present ignorance. 3) Ockham did not think it possible to prove that there was only one God, nor that the most perfect possible being existed. There is a distinction between two possibilities. Either God is: i) The most perfect being that actually exists. In this case, there clearly is such a being (whatever it may be), but this does not mean it is the Christian God. Or ii) The most perfect being that could possibly exist. In this case, however, there is no way of showing that this POSSIBLE being is also an actual being. Christians maintain that God is the most perfect possible being. Ockhams claim is that the most that the Cosmological argument can establish is the most perfect being that actually exists, and there is no way of moving from this to showing that God is the most perfect possible being. It is in this sense that the Cosmological argument is sometimes held to depend on the Ontological, as the Ontological argument starts from the definition that God is the most perfect possible being. Ockhams point might be re-stated by claiming that this position is needed by Christianity but cannot be established by the Cosmological argument. Aquinas considered that Gods existence cannot be known to be necessary by understanding Gods nature, as human beings cannot know this nature. However, he considered that if we COULD know this nature (in the way that God does) THEN Gods existence would be seen to be necessary. Because of our lack of knowledge of Gods nature, Aquinas rejects the ontological argument and all his arguments move from features of the universe to God. Ockhams approach to Theology is distinctive and important. He often differed from Aquinas, and his arguments are frequently strong. His position deserves greater attention than it tends to be given! The same, incidentally, applies to the philosophy of Bonaventure and Duns Scotus. LEIBNIZ (1646 1716) ==================== The best known expression of Leibniz argument is based on the BOOK OF THE ELEMENTS OF GEOMETRY: Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy always having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason. Leibniz often uses the word reason but it is clear that this effectively means cause. for instance he quotes the example of Archimedes balance which is held in equal balance unless there is a reason (i.e. cause) why one side should be weighed down. He argues for the existence of the ultimate reason of things which he takes to mean the ultimate cause of things. Effectively he wishes to maintain that everything (including the universe itself) must have a reason or cause for its existence and this must mean there is an ultimate, uncaused cause which he takes to be God. Leibniz considered that there must be a complete or sufficient explanation, and therefore the book (in the example above), like the world, must have had a first cause. Geisler and Corduan5 summarise Leibniz argument as follows: 1. The world we see is changing 2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence 3. There is a sufficient reason for everything either within itself or outside itself 4. Therefore there must be a cause beyond itself for its existence 5. Either this cause is itself caused or is its own sufficient reason 6. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because this will never provide a sufficient reason 7. Therefore there must be a first Cause of the world which has no reason beyond itself but is its own sufficient reason. The key to this argument is the PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON, which Leibniz thought to be self-evidently true. In practice, people are normally content with proximate reasons reasons that satisfy. Thus the reason these notes are written is to make philosophic issues clearer to students. One might ask further questions such as why I bother since no-one reads them, whether this is the best way of helping students, or even why the students are studying Philosophy of Religion at all, but most people would not consider that there has to be an ultimate explanation of my action in order for the explanation to make sense. It is the assertion of an ultimate explanation that the Principle of Sufficient Reason maintains. Kai Neilsen says that If a series were literally infinite, there would be no need for there to be a first cause to get the causal order started, for there would always be a causal order since an infinite series can have no first member6. However even if a series existed eternally, then it could still be argued that God is needed to sustain the series which brings the discussion back to whether the whole causal series is simply a brute fact or requires God to explain it. Mackie7 maintains that Leibniz argument can be challenged in two ways: 1. Firstly by asking How do we know everything must have a sufficient reason? Leibniz asserts that this is the case but does not actually provide any compelling argument, 2. Secondly, How can there be a necessary being, one that contains its own sufficient reason? Leibniz does not have any compelling reason to show why the existence of such a being is necessary. HUMES CRITICISMS8 ================== Hume offers a sustained attack on the Cosmological arguments, and his arguments have since been developed and elaborated: 1. Like causes resemble like effects. The most that can be derived from finite effects will be finite causes. All that it is reasonable to do is to propose a cause adequate to explain the effect, and this will be a finite cause. Hume asks why one should not postulate male and female gods who are born and die, as the closer the analogy between causes in the world and causes of the world as a whole the closer should be the resemblance between us as agents who cause things and God. 2. We have no experience of universes being made. Nothing counts for or against the hypothesis about the origin of everything. Swinburne (The Existence of God) rejects this view as he argues that everything is unique under some description although Humes point is that we know about causes within the universe, and this does not entitle us to move to a cause of the universe as a whole. The essence of this point can be expressed by saying that it is one thing to say that every human being has a mother, but that one cannot move from this to say that there is a mother for the whole human race. 3. No proposition about existence can be logically necessary. The opposite of any statement about existence is always perfectly possible. This objection may rest on a confusion, as Aquinas does not claim that Gods existence is logically necessary instead he claims that the existence of God is necessary GIVEN motion, cause, contingency, etc.. God is not logically necessary God is de re necessary, necessary in and of himself. 4. The words necessary being have no consistent meaning. Any being claimed to exist may or may not exist. Hume stated this by saying that All existential propositions are synthetic. 5. If necessary being means only imperishable being, then the universe itself may be necessary. This is similar to Russells point in his debate with Copleston. IF one accepts (and Russell did not) that things in the world are contingent, why should not the Universe as a whole be necessary? We know from Einsteins principle of the conservation of matter that matter and energy remain constant, so why should matter and energy not be the constants that are necessary to explain the contingency of everything else? 6. An infinite series is possible. If this is true, then there need be no sufficient reason and no end to the regress of justification. 7. There is no way of establishing the principle of causality (see discussion of this point under Ockham above). KANTs CRITICISMS ================== Kants key criticism (although there are a number) is based on the claim that NO EXISTENTIAL STATEMENT CAN BE NECESSARY. Necessity only applies to thought; it cannot apply to being. Kant is, therefore, rejecting the idea of God as de re necessary. Brian Davies says that as God is not a something, we should not ask what caused God. But this is to put God into a special category (see Lee below), which Kant effectively rejects. Kant maintained that genuine knowledge and reasoning can only be about objects of possible experience and since we cannot experience the object which is God, we cannot reason our way to Him. You cannot move from physical premises to a metaphysical conclusion. We can, in other words, know about the PHENOMENA but not the NOUMENA. MARTIN LEE9 ============ Martin Lees point is that either God is something or God is nothing. If God is something we can ask what caused God, whilst if God is nothing God cannot be an explanation for the universe. Aquinas wants to deny this distinction. Aquinas maintains that God is neither something nor nothing God is in Gods own category. Brian Davies makes the same point, and it is central to the cosmological argument. There are various possible definitions of the Universe, thus: * DAVIES All existing things * COPLESTON The real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects. Lee maintains that if the world is the aggregate of objects, then the explanation of the existence of the world is the aggregate of the explanations of individual objects. So the cause of a chair is the carpenter, plus materials and tools. If the totality is no more than the aggregate, then once one has explained the existence of each item in the aggregate, there is no more to explain. IF the world is more than the aggregate then we are into the design argument. So Lee maintains that REVELATION and not Natural Theology tells us that the world was created and dependent. One of the crucial moves in the Cosmological argument is whether it is a legitimate move on the part of Aquinas to put God into a category of Gods own neither something nor nothing. Lee maintains that it is not but, perhaps, his argument rests on the idea that God must be in some sense an object in the Universe rather than in a category of Gods own. The latter view appears attractive, but critics could maintain that by putting God into a self-explanatory, unique category one is making an unjustified assumption which could be regarded as a somewhat ad hoc hypothesis. WHY POSTULATE THIS SPECIAL CATEGORY? DOES THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT REST ON A MISTAKE? ===================================================== Perhaps the whole idea of the Cosmological argument is misconceived; some philosophers have taken this view. I believe in God may not work according to the same logic as saying I believe in an undiscovered planet between earth and Mars. Rush Rhees maintains this view. He says: If you tried to explain to someone who had no idea of religion that there was a first cause, you could be arguing as follows: There must be a first cause, a Something and this something is more powerful, whatever that means, than anything else so you would not have been conceived or born but for the operation of Something, and Something might wipe everything out of existence at any time. Would THAT give us any idea of the wonder and glory of God? Surely he would reply: What a frightful idea! Like a Frankenstein without limit so that you cannot escape it the most ghastly nightmare. If my chief reason for worshipping God had to be a belief that a super-Frankenstein would blast me to Hell if I did not, then I hope I should have the decency to tell this being who is named Almighty God to go ahead and blast. Is the reason for worshipping God rather than the Devil that God is stronger than the Devil? GOD WILL GET YOU IN THE END AND THEN YOU WILL BE FOR IT. THINK OF THE FUTURE BOY, AND DONT THROW AWAY YOUR CHANCES. What a creeping, vile sort of thing this religion would be. God, Rush Rhees maintains, does not have MORE power than the Devil, God has a different sort of power. Both D.Z. Phillips and R.W. Hepburn consider, with Tillich, that: The Cosmological Argument degrades God to the level of the world. Tillich says: The arguments for the existence of God are neither arguments nor are they proofs of the existence of God, they are expressions of the Question of God which is implied by human finitude. D. Z. Phillips, in a chapter From world to God in his book Faith and Philosophic Enquiry, sees the Cosmological argument as an attempt to explain the world. In DostoyevskysThe Brothers Karamazov, Dimitri asks why a baby is crying he is not interested in the circumstances but in the larger question. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORLD AND THE MEANING OF LIFE ARE THE SAME. The meaning of life and of the world is, Phillips maintains, to be found WITHIN the Universe and not outside it. Phillips maintains that Gods love is other than the world as it means dying to the worlds way of looking at things. So the man who loves God cannot be harmed by any of the worlds suffering or evils. This is what Jesus meant when he said that perfect love casts out fear or when he talked of the peace that only he could give, or what Socrates meant when he said that The Good man cannot be harmed. Phillips, however, argues for a non-realist understanding of Gods existence (see my book, The Puzzle of God), so he would naturally reject the enterprise of which the Cosmological argument forms part. Whether he is right or not is a wider issue. FINALLY ======== At the end of the day, the key issue is possibly whether the world as a brute fact (Bertrand Russell) is more self-explanatory than God as the cause of the Universe. The Big Bang theory points to the idea that the universe had a beginning and that space and time came into existence with the Universe this is similar to the position which supporters of the Cosmological argument seek to establish. It also points to a God who is timeless and spaceless, since time and space would be dependent on the created Universe. However, whether the universe is the ultimate inexplicable fact, or whether God is the ultimate explanation, is what the argument is all about and this is not easy to establish. Believers in God may find the argument persuasive; others may be less convinced. Hick and Swinburne are examples of philosophers who take different views on this and it is essential, if the argument is to succeed, to show why God is the better ultimate explanation. Swinburne (The Existence of God10) maintains that God is a SIMPLER explanation than the brute fact of the universe because God provides a personal explanation but this is debatable. Aquinas certainly considered that God was metaphysically simple (this is the defining characteristic of the Thomist God from which other features such as Gods timelessness, immutability, spacelessness, bodilessness, etc. are derived), but this is VERY different from saying that God provides a simple explanation. Also, it is all very well saying that God is personal, but it is far from clear what personal means when applied to the wholly simple God it certainly cannot be understood univocally (see The Puzzle of God 11for a discussion on analogy and metaphor in religious language) since God is not personal in the same sense as a human being is personal.