Proof of a Creator - A Rejoinder to Theodore Schick, Jr

This essay is a rejoinder to a paper written by Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. The 1998 paper is entitled *"The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God"* and is a rebuttal to the views held by Hugh Ross, noted astronomer and Christian apologist, as expressed within his book *The Creator and the Cosmos*. The paper was originally published in *Philo, the Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers*.

The impetus of Dr. Schick's paper is to discredit Dr. Ross's contention that the acceptance of the theory of the "big bang" as the beginning of the universe implies that it must have had a cause beyond the event itself, and Dr. Schick's corollary contention that such an assertion is nothing but a scientifically updated variation of St. Thomas Aquinas's "uncaused first cause" argument to prove the existence of God. As blasphemous as it might sound coming from a Catholic such as me, I acknowledge that Aquinas's reasoning left something to be desired in this case. I don't contest Dr. Schick's views on this point.

As a Catholic high school student, I once had the effrontery to ask a priest in religion class, "If it is sufficient to assert that 'God always was, always is and always will be' then why can't we just say the same about the universe?" (The priest's response was less than memorable.) In his paper, Dr. Schick echoes my youthful inquisitiveness:

"But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing...."

The meat of Dr. Schick's rebuttal to Dr. Ross's views is that Dr. Ross positions a higher dimensional time, a time in which the spacetime that we know and live within was created: the creator's time. Since the big bang is held to be the beginning of time, Dr. Ross argues, that implies it must have had a cause, as did the beginning of everything else. Since the big bang is the beginning of our time, then its cause cannot have been within our time (because an effect must follow its cause); rather, it must have been within the higher dimensional time of the creator that Dr. Ross positions.

Dr. Schick rebuts this argument as follows:

"This argument arrives at the conclusion that the universe has a beginning in time by assuming that the universe has a cause. But the big bang argument uses the premise that the universe has a beginning in time to arrive at the conclusion that the universe has a cause. So Ross is arguing in a circle. He is assuming that the universe has a cause to prove that the universe has a cause. Because Ross begs the question about whether the universe has a cause, he does not succeed in proving the existence of a higher dimensional time, let alone the existence of a transcendental god."

Dr. Schick is correct. It is, therefore, my intention within this essay to attempt to provide the justification that Dr. Ross's argument lacks to assume that the big bang (and, therefore, the universe) had a cause. For the benefit of my argument, I appeal to none other than perhaps the most venerated, self-professed atheist in scientific history, Albert Einstein himself! It is an understatement to judge it ironic that I perceive that such a renowned atheist proved, albeit unwittingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some sort.

It was Hermann Minkowski, Dr. Einstein's erstwhile math teacher, who first pointed out to him that his special theory of relativity implied a four-dimensional universe, now usually referred to as the "block universe." In this scheme of reality, time is reduced to a mere fourth dimension, with the result being that the universe can no longer be viewed as being composed of space and time, but rather as an unified structure called "spacetime," with all events within the universe (including particles seemingly being created without a cause via vacuum fluctuations) occurring at the confluence of four-dimensional points.

(For example: September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center at the precise floor and instant that the first plane hit.)

Dr. Einstein himself was at first most reluctant to accept such a view of reality, but eventually came to embrace it. Here lies the point most relevant to the thrust of this essay: Within the block universe scheme of reality, the past, present and future of spacetime all exist contemporaneously and there is no privileged moment within spacetime solely entitled to call itself "the present" or "now."

(Some attempt to argue that such a view is a misinterpretation of the theory. However, Dr. Einstein himself certainly seemed to accept its validity as there is a letter written by him to the widow of a recently late associate in which he attempts to comfort her by pointing out that her late husband and she were presently enjoying many happy moments together in other parts of the universe. )

I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect. For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. But here is the rub: If the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally?

The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn't. That is, it didn't in our spacetime. Just as a painting's obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e., by the artist), the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.

The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation. If the universe is static (with motion (and change) being a mere illusion--exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued--, along the lines of a motion picture rendering the illusion of motion from a series of still frames), then nothing within our spacetime could have been created within it any more than a now static Rembrandt masterpiece could have created and ordered itself.

Rather, the reality that we live within and perceive must have been sequentially created (thus accounting for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in a higher dimensional time, exactly as Dr. Ross argues, and then became static, exactly as a painting does upon completion. Quite simply, a cause must precede its effect within existence, which cannot be the case if both the cause and the effect have always existed simultaneously.

As a thought experiment, assume that the characters within a novel could somehow gain sentience and intelligence, and that their universe, contained within the pages of the book, seems just as real to them as our universe (or "multiverse" if the MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct in fact) does to us (in our higher dimensional time). Unless the author was able and chose to communicate with his or her creations, then by what means would they have to discover the true nature and origin of their existences other than by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from without, as to them their universe appears simply to have always been and thus cannot have been created within its own dimension of time?

The alternative would be for them to reason as Dr. Schick and many others do. That is, that their--unbeknownst to them--literary universe simply "just is." In this hypothetical scenario, they would be very wrong; just as I believe Dr. Schick and others are for the reasons I have presented. Dynamic forces cannot exist within a stagnant universe. To argue otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the dynamic force that forged our now static universe via causes and effects (i.e., the laws of physics) must have come from without.

How then can one account for the creator's origin? How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? That is what I term the "ultimate mystery" of existence. How can anything exist at all? As incomprehensible as the mystery is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, someone or something "just is," and in his, her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality.

It is not my contention that I can solve the ultimate mystery to which I referred. Rather, I only claim that if Dr. Einstein's theory is correct--as on empirical grounds it certainly appears to be--, then it is evident that our spacetime had a creator (existent or once so), the nature of whom or which is beyond the scope of this essay. Dr. Schick is certainly not arguing in favor of one version of a creator over another. On the contrary, he argues against the existence of any creator at all, a view which this essay attempts to refute as scientifically illogical.

In summation, although my arguments might transpose to a typical "intelligent design" thesis, I contend that my conclusion cannot be simply dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that intelligent design adherents commonly put forth in support of their views. My basic point is one derived from the prevailing paradigm that contemporary physicists labor within: relativity and the block universe it implies.

Donald Schneider is the author of "Pride's Prison," a short story concerning Tourette's Syndrome and the effects of resulting school bullying upon a juvenile character. The story is linked to at his personal website, both of which are entirely free access. He also writes on literary and philosophical matters.

live Essay Creator
Buy Essays

Essay Writing Services Are A Great Boon for Website Owners

Nowadays, it is universally agreed upon that one of the best ways of increasing traffic to your website is through article submissions. Well written, informative and SEO enriched articles can turn around the face and story of any website. However, as a website creator and owner, you might not have the time, resources or the knack for creative writing. Even though you may be an expert on your subject, you might still fail to write an informative and cohesive article on a topic related to your website either because of shortage of time or simply because your skills might lie in another area altogether. However, there is no need for you to despair in such a case, because there are a large number of essay writing companies that can create all kinds of customized content for your web site based on your needs and requirements.

Custom essay writing services today can produce anything ranging from originally researched and written term papers, theses and essays to articles and blogs for people, organizations, websites and individuals based on their needs and requirements. Most web based essay writing firms employ graduates as well as post graduates who are experts in their fields. These essay writing firms provide you with well researched, well written and original write ups on almost any topic under the sun. Most of these companies employ people who have graduated in their respective subjects, so you can rest assured that your article on Technology is not being written by someone who holds his or her degree in Philosophy. It is akin to getting a specialist to write for you.

Another good thing about these essay writing companies is that most of the good ones are extremely professional. After every article has been written, it is generally proofread by another expert and then scanned by a number of plagiarism testing softwares like copyscape etcetera, so there are no chances of your getting an article that is either full of mistakes or copied from somewhere else. At the same time, web based essay writing companies adhere strictly to their deadlines, sending you your write up as and when agreed, and many refuse to take payment in case the delivery is later than specified.

You might think that a service with all the above mentioned benefits would cost you an arm and a leg, but you would be pleasantly surprised at the reasonable amounts that you will be required to pay for your write ups. Due to the proliferation of a number of professional online essay writing services almost anybody and everybody can afford to get articles written to cater to their specific needs and requirements.

Essays Creator
Best Online Essays

How to Pick Creative Topics for an Essay 2: Using Occam's Razor Sparingly

1. You have been reading up on a topic, and you have to write an essay about it for homework.
2. You are reading about an unusual event and you want to know why it happened.
3. You are curious about why some people behave the way they do.

Deciding what to write about, what is important, and reaching meaningful conclusions about the causes of certain events, or coming to understand the human condition and what motivates people, are all difficult things to do.

There are so many theories, ideas, and slants. There seems to be so much information on any given topic that reaching the right conclusions rather than jumping to them is difficult, if not impossible. At any rate that's how it must look at times.

There are ways to reach sensible conclusions, and realizing that there may not be any right answers to complex questions is one such way. There are sensible, plausible answers, but most of the time, there is rarely just the one that is absolutely correct.

The physical sciences seem to represent the closest we get to 'right' answers, but any scientists will tell you that what is considered correct only applies at a certain level of analysis.

Water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade, and every schoolboy knows that. A closer look at water boiling, however, reveals that only pure water boils at that temperature, and then only at sea level. Add some impurities, and try the experiment at an altitude above mean sea level and you will find that in fact, water doesn't behave in that way.

In the mosaic of information in other subjects, much of the information actually conflicts, and we know that statistics can be manipulated to prove anything, don't we?

A friend of mine was recently informed by a doctor that his apparent deafness was due to a spinal degeneration that was limiting the amount of blood getting to the ear. Another doctor examined him and told him he had a an ear infection from swimming in water that may not have been chlorinated enough to prevent contamination.

My friend accepted the latter diagnosis. The question is: Was he right to do that? Was he right to accept the diagnosis that he most wanted to believe?

He accepted the simplest explanation. He used the principle known as 'Occam's razor' to decide what to believe. He had a vested interest in so doing, and indeed, who wouldn't want to believe the second explanation rather than the first?

Occam's razor states that: 'One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.'
It is similar to the principle of parsimony or the principle of simplicity, which is a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations.
'One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.'

Or in other words:
'A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.'

In plain language, the simplest explanation is most probably the correct one, given that all the facts have been dealt with, the logical principle put forward by William of Occam, a medieval English philosopher.

Here is a real life example of Occam's Razor in practice. Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. The first one was that UFOs had made the imprints. The second was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass.

Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for UFOs and the complexity involved in UFOs arriving from distant galaxies, the second interpretation is the simplest and therefore the one most likely to be correct.

Of course, both explanations could have been wrong, but again, the second was by far the simplest, and so, applying the principle of Occam's razor, would be the one most likely to be correct.

More evidence would be needed before the first one could be accepted. In fact, two people later admitted that they had made the circles, corroborating the second explanation.

For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases.

Evidence is critical in making judgments regarding explanations for otherwise inexplicable events is concerned.

We talk about reaching conclusions, and we talk about jumping to conclusions, and while it is true to say that the latter is usually applied to more day to day matters, it is also true to say that reaching conclusions based upon examination of sound evidence is always
preferable to jumping to conclusions, or reaching a conclusion before any attempt at examining all the evidence has been undertaken.

Acceptance of a proposition based upon incomplete evidence is known as prejudice. To be honest though, prejudicial behavior is usually displayed in connection with issues that concern people rather than, for example, with scientific phenomena.

Nevertheless, if we were to invariably accept the simplest explanation as being the nearest one to the truth, or to reality, then we would be guilty of habitually ignoring potentially important data just because it complicated the issue or because it was not presented initially.

A complete, in depth understanding of complex issues or equations demands that we examine all the relevant data before we pass judgment or define something, or decide upon something.

The principle known as Occam's razor is most helpful in helping us to limit the amount of data that is relevant to our understanding of a particular topic.
It is the awareness of the existence of other variables that is necessary, along with deeming them relevant or otherwise.

In this age of the information super-highway, the Internet, it is those who are able to select relevant data and use it sensibly who will be more successful, and a plethora of information increases the difficulty of their being able to do that.

Creative Essays
Online Papers

Jon Jost, Independent Film-maker - Stagefright

Jon Jost, independent film-maker. The early films

9. Stagefright

'Stagefright' (1981) is very different from the other early Jost films. The reason for the difference is two-fold: firstly it was originally made (in shorter form) for German TV, and Jost has adapted his methods to suit the medium, and secondly the subject under examination, the theatre, is examined in close-up, rather than, as in the pervious two films, through its effect on society at large.

The film looks different because it is all shot in a studio with actors performing against a black background. The emphasis, therefore, in on expression through the human figure, which both suits the TV medium and reproduces the methods of the theatre. In fact, since we are made constantly aware that we are watching actors performing, and since the camera does not move, watching the film is almost as much like being at the theatre as like being at the cinema.

The film has no plot, and like 'l, 2, 3, Four' and other early shorts, the sub-text is in essay form. The argument has four stages: an introduction, an exposition, a climax, and a conclusion. The introduction is a short history of human communication, and, like everything else in Jost's films, it can be read on more than one level. Firstly we are made aware that the subject being illustrated is communication as part of the evolution of mankind. Secondly we are aware that the story is being illustrated by actors, and that developments in communication have also taken place in the theatre. And thirdly we are aware that what we are watching is a film, another area in which developments in communication have taken place.

The film opens with a dance representing birth. It can be seen as the birth of mankind, and, in the way the dancer communicates through the use of her body, as the birth of human communication, and of theatre. The following sequences illustrate, visually and aurally, the refinement of this process towards communication through language. First we see the human face, which communicates states of mind through its expressions, then we close in on the mouth, and the extraordinary range of sounds it is capable of making. Then comes the addition of vocal sounds, and finally, as the image cuts back to reveal the full-length naked figure, we hear the first word of the film: 'Human'.

The next sequence follows the development of language, first with a figure clad in a toga reading Latin from a book, illustrating the birth of Western civilisation, the written word, and costume, and then, as letters proliferate wildly on the screen, the arrival of printing. The latter scene is the first with no human figure in it, showing that language has now taken on a life of its own; and the power of this new medium of communication is shown in the next scene: we see a close-up of a text, and, as it is read aloud, drops of blood-red ink fall on the pages, eventually obscuring the words.

So far, other than "Human", not a word of English has been spoken; we have been looking at forms of communication in relation to their source and raison d'être - the human being - without being distracted by meanings.

The next scene, in which a cabaret hostess welcomes us to the show, marks the beginning of the exposition. We have followed the evolution of language into an important arena of communication: the theatre; in other words, as we sit there watching the performance, into our immediate situation.

The film then takes us through a medley of theatrical entertainment, while at the same time entertaining us with a medley of trick photography. The emphasis in these scenes, in both form and content, is on trickery, illusion, and falseness, showing how, in the world of show business, actors are used to create characters and images which effectively prevent any real person-to-person communication from taking place.

In a scene commenting on cabaret we watch conjuring tricks, while the camera is performing its own conjuring tricks by showing two characters, one shot from a low angle, and one shot from a high angle, simultaneously.

In a scene commenting, perhaps, on psychological drama, we see a young actress, in full-face and profile simultaneously, standing dumbly and nervously as two men, perhaps the director and producer, smother her with advice and instructions. The actress has no voice of her own, she is being manipulated by others, and the only thing which is genuine about the whole scene is the thing they are trying to eliminate; her stagefright.

In a scene commenting on the theatrical performances of statesmen three actors don masks of politicians and act out the kind of hand-shaking routines we see in TV and newspaper pictures. This scene makes two points: it exposes the public image-making of statesmen as a branch of show business, and it shows actors having to act out roles imposed on them by people with political power.

Every now and then during these scenes an actor doing an absurdly exaggerated James Cagney impression walks across the screen saying: "No wonder there are so many casualties." And every now and then a hand holding a camera reaches down from the top of the screen and takes a photograph of us, the audience in whose name the whole bag of tricks is being performed.

The film's climax is a sequence in which the cheapest trick in show business, the custard pie in the face, is rendered grotesque and terrifying by being shown in extreme slow motion. We see every detail as the pie flies through the air, hits the actor in the face, and begins to fall away. This is a very long take and its effect is deeply disturbing.

The action which is normally supposed to make us laugh is now seen as a vicious and humiliating assault on an actor whose suffering is all-too apparent. He looks as if he is being injured, and, indeed, psychologically he is. As with the scenes of the exposition we are being asked to question the relationship between actors and ourselves. Who are actors? What is being done to them, and, through them, to us? Why are we sitting watching? And who is controlling it all?

Then suddenly the film cuts to the famous newsreel footage of a Vietnamese peasant being shot through the head. We see more of it than is usually shown on TV: the man falls to the ground and blood fountains from the wound. At the same time there is a scream on the sound-track, and the film jumps out of alignment, as if it is about to break. The effect creates a powerful shock, a shock which should make us think and force us into an awareness of the film's message.

The meanings are many. The sudden intrusion of a chunk of reality throws into perspective the artificiality of the rest of the film, and, by implication, of all forms of show business. While people, including ourselves, flock to theatres and cinemas to be entertained and distracted by artifice, wholesale slaughter is going on every day in the real world outside.

The fact that the film appears to break, or come adrift from the screen, both adds to the visual shock, and suggests that the medium of film cannot accommodate reality. It also disrupts our attachment to the screen, reminding us that this is no mere cinematic event.

Finally, a parallel is being drawn between the actor being 'shot' with the custard pie, and the peasant being shot with a bullet; a parallel which suggests that both men are being manipulated and made to suffer by forces beyond their control

'Stagefright' ends with an explicit statement of its message, or at least, part of its message. This is presumably because, being originally made for TV, Jost saw an opportunity for his film to reach a wide audience, large numbers of whom would probably not make head or tail of it.

The message is delivered by the actor doing the exaggerated Cagney impression: a device which reinforces the message by its conspicuousness as a means of holding our attention. The actor, who has already been established in a choric role with his repeated line: "No wonder there are so many casualties", comes close to the camera, as if taking us into his confidence, and says (approximately):

"You see, to communicate you've got to entertain. The great playwrights, like the Greeks, and Shakespeare knew that, but today intellectuals seem afraid of it, as if to entertain was to cheapen, and this leaves the way open for cheap entertainment, I mean entertainment with cheap intentions.

"Those with access to an audience have a tremendous responsibility, which is often abused.

"Everyone wants to be somebody, and in this wonderful world of the theatre they get a chance, but as often as not they betray it to someone else.

"They say theatre holds a mirror up to society, but as often as not it's a vanity mirror.

"The bard said, 'All the world's a stage', and maybe it is, but what they don't tell you is that all of life is stage-managed. You got your TV, radio, theatre, films, and pop music; it's all divertimenti kids, all divertimenti."

Then the actor, obviously thinking the shot is finished, relaxes, drops characterisation, and takes his hat off. Then Jost walks in front of the camera and speaks to the sound man: "Did you get it?" "Is the camera still rolling?" says the confused-looking sound man. "Are you still filming?"

Then, one by one, Jost turns out the studio lamps and the film ends in darkness. This ending, of course, breaks the cinematic illusion, reminding us that everything we have seen on the screen has also been stage-managed, by Jost himself.

Essay Maker
Online Essay

College Admissions: Why You Need An Outsider's Perspective

I recently saw a question posted by "David" on one of those "Ask an expert" type sites - it was all about financial aid - and the answer to the financial aid question was only half-right. Half-baked information will get you half-baked results.

But, what struck me more was the "self-assessment" of the person writing the question. It struck me because I "see" this A LOT from students.

"David" is interested in MIT but is now considering Yale,too, because of information he came across regarding financial aid on Collegeboard.com.

Here's how he assessed himself (and his question):

"I have straight A's throughout my high school. I have a pretty good SAT and ACT scores. I can write a killer essay. I have been doing a few extracurricular throughout 4 years. I guess recommendation is not a big problem. So I want to have a shot at MIT.

However, when I was searching for Yale this morning, my mind starts to change a bit. So here is my question:

- Does the average financial aid package mean the total money/scholarship you'll get for one year (two semesters)?

- If that is the case, does it mean that average students pay around $2,000 each year for their tuition (ignore room, books, and other costs first)?

- So, if I'm lucky enough, does it mean that I can get a ride to college for FREE or almost FREE?

- Let's say that I'm REALLY lucky, and get a scholarship that worth more than the cost of my tuition, does it mean that I can even "EARN" money as a college student (if I spend less on the other costs)?"

In this one statement, I can tell a few things about David, and so will the admissions officers.

First up, he believes that "Great grades, strong SAT scores and lots of activities are enough". Well, the THOUSANDS of students who apply to MIT and Yale also have them. So, what else do you have to offer, David?

Next: "I can write a killer essay." David, even Hemmingway needed an editor. And, writing a decent essay in class is not the style of essay you'll need on the application. And, as a former English teacher, I've met a lot of English teachers who can't write. So, relying on them may not be the best idea, either.

Next problem: "I guess recommendation is not a big problem." (The way this is written makes me question his ability to "write a killer essay"). Getting a good recommendation is not simply a question of asking someone to write one.

And, finally, my favorite: "Let's say that I'm REALLY lucky, and get a scholarship that worth more than the cost of my tuition... " again, apart from the lousy writing, this sentence screams ignorance about the colleges he is looking to attend.

Yale (and the rest of the Ivy League) and MIT (and most of the other Ivy-Type colleges) do not offer scholarships. If you have a financial aid need, they will offer you need-based aid. But they don't offer scholarships - because they don't have to.

David also believes he should get a scholarship, but has no clue as to how or why it would happen.How do I know? "Let's say that I'm REALLY lucky, and get a scholarship... "

There's a lot he doesn't know about these colleges and about the college search, selection, application and funding process in general.

And when you don't know what you don't know, you end up disappointed.

David may very well have a good shot at schools like Yale and MIT; AND, there might be other colleges he isn't even considering yet that would be even better fits for the type of student he actually is. Problem is, there's a lot he doesn't know (and most likely there's a lot his parents don't know, too).

The solution is to get help with all of this. College is a huge investment of time, effort and money - now is not the time to cut corners.

Your Smart Plan For College Assignment:

Take a moment to be really honest with yourself: do you see a bit of yourself or your student in David's story?

Do you know how the college process really works?

Are you sure?

Outline three steps you could take right now (based on the mistakes "David" is making or to avoid the myths he's believing) so that you don't end up disappointed.

If you can't list three steps, it's time to get some help.

Jeanmarie Keller has helped thousands of students get into colleges they love while making sure their parents save a fortune on the bill. Jeanmarie is the creator of the Smart Plan For College System which teaches her client-families how to get noticed in the admissions office, get in at the colleges right for them and how to get the money they need to help pay the bill.

Professional Essays
Essay Services

Easy Essays - Follow Five Simple Steps to Write Your Best Essay Ever

Do you struggle with writing essays? Do you put off starting your assignment until the last possible minute, then dash through it to get it over and done with? Do you find yourself making any excuse to stop and procrastinate while you're writing?

Here are five steps that make essay writing easy and even enjoyable:

Brainstorm about your essay topic

When you get given your essay question or topic, you might think "I don't know where to start." Or, worse, you might think, "That's so easy - but how can I spin it out to 3,000 words?" Sitting and staring at your essay topic won't help, though. You need to grab a blank piece of paper.

Got that sheet of paper? Good. Write your essay topic in the middle, and start to brainstorm. Jot down any major points that the topic raises, or any secondary questions that relate to it. Don't worry about your ideas being good, or linking together, at this stage: just write down everything that comes to mind.

Make an essay plan

Once you've spent twenty minutes or so brainstorming, you're ready to mould those initial thoughts into an essay plan. Decide on your thesis first; what do you want to say in your essay? Try to put this down in writing - it'll form part of your introduction and your conclusion.

When you're clear about your thesis, work out two to four points that you're going to use to back it up. Write these down, along with any sub-points for each. Doing this now, rather than launching straight into your essay, means that you won't run out of steam half-way through.

Collate examples to use in your essay

Now that you're clear about the points you want to make, you can look for examples to back up what you're going to say. This means going through relevant books, journals and articles to find experts in your subject who agree with you! Sometimes, you might even want to quote from a source and then disagree with it.

If you're studying a subject like English or History, you'll need to quote from "primary sources" or "first hand sources" (such as novels, in English, or diaries and letters in History). But don't forget to bring in some literary critics or historians too.

Draft your essay in one sitting

Don't get into the habit of writing a sentence or two of your essay, wandering the room for a while, writing another sentence, and stopping for a coffee break. Sit down, switch off your mobile - and your internet connection if you can - and get your plan and all your examples to hand. Then set a timer and start writing.

How long you need to draft an essay depends on how fast you write and on the word length, but try to challenge yourself: if drafting an essay normally takes you three hours, see if you can do it in two.

Leave your essay, then revise

Once you've come to the end of your essay, print it out, and leave it for at least a day. When you come to revise, sit down with the hard copy and a pen, and go through, marking any changes that you want to make. Don't try to edit straight onto the screen, as it's easy to get caught up in "tinkering" and miss the real problems.

If you have time, start a whole new document for the redraft; your writing will often flow much better if you rewrite each paragraph and even each sentence. The first draft was raw creation, this is honing and polishing.

One last thing - don't forget that final proof-read when you're done!

Ali Hale is a postgraduate student of Creative & Life Writing, and runs the blog Alpha Student ("Helping you make the most of your time at Uni"). Ali works as a freelance writer and website creator, and is on the staff of several large blogs. If you're looking for a writer or a website, you can hire her via Aliventures.

Essay Creator Online
Custom Research Paper

How to Die Peacefully

It is very important to have peace of mind at the time of death. Our friends and relatives will be watching the state of our mind when we are leaving this world for good. The state of mind is affected by our joy, fear, and the circumstances under which we end our life and many other factors which have some influence on our mind.

To have peace of mind, what is needed is confidence that we are created by the Creator to be part of Him and accomplish His purpose for which He created the universe. It is not easy for each one of us to know the Creator's Purpose in creating the universe. It takes a lot of deep thinking to arrive at the Creator's thinking. Even with all our deep thinking, we may not always arrive at the correct thoughts of the Creator. However, the Creator is a being of love and all creation is a work of love. Therefore, the Creator will overlook our mistakes and short-sightedness.

When we have infinite faith that the creation was not for the purpose of having worshippers or for any other benefit of the Creator but for the Creator to have a creation to serve. This is a very encouraging thought that we are created because the Creator wanted something or someone to help. Therefore, to please the Creator, all we have to do is to receive the help He wants to give us.

When we think deeply to understand the mystery of this enterprise, we will get to know the mind of the Creator and the relationship between the Creator and the creation. The more we understand the purpose of creation, which is to have objects to serve, we can appreciate how greatly the Creator thinks of the creation and what all service He wants to render to it. When we understand this, we will be eternally indebted to the Creator for having created us. This philosophy will give us peace of mind and purpose of life. But in order to have this peace of mind, we have to think deeply and incessantly of the purpose of the creation. The more we think, the more we will be attached to the Creator and be thankful to him for creating us to render us His best service. All that the Creator wants us to do is to accept the service He wants to give us. To accept all the benefits He has programmed for us and finally, join back with Him at the end of our life to be with Him eternally

When we know this, we will not be afraid to die and we will die peacefully.

(For more information, read the essays by P.C. Simon)

Essay Creator
Buy Essays