The Catechism: A short essay on the belief of God

*This is my first topic in Non-fiction. Just say that i got inspired to write this from various influences


Part I: the Clockmaker

“I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe exist without the clockmaker” is a quote by Philosopher Voltaire in the 18th century is but one of the many people that had debated on the existence of God.
The idea of His existence being neither proved nor disproved can contradict to both parties with one group saying that they have proof than the others. But through this short essay, I will comprehend on the notion of God where the act of believing is not the only way of knowing His existence but to the act of understanding. This short essay will explain His existence and his nature & the seen and the unseen.

Part II: God

I start off with this quote by St. Anselm, “The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.”
Undoubtedly, there have been a great number of reasons being demonstrated to understand the existence of God and there has been many to counter it. Through this short essay, I will demonstrate the first two ways out of five of God’s existence through the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The first notion is change. He stated that anything that is changing must have something that caused the change. He also enlightened it by noting that things changing are on its way to realization while the one causing the change are already realized: they are realizing something else’s potential and for this, they are real.
The second notion is through Cause. From the first case, Cause is referred to an event rather than a physical thing. In the observable world, causes are found to be ordered in series; we never observe something causing itself for this would mean it preceded itself. Now if one eliminate a certain cause, you eliminate the effect unless you have the first cause. If there was no first cause, there would be no intermediate causes either and no effect. He stated that the First Cause is God.


Part III: Materialism

From the last paragraph, the atheist, whom this part will explain, denies existence of The Divine First Cause or God. His argument is based on the lack of physical date of the theist and the limited nature of man. I hold on to the idea that Science is the explanation of the Material or to say what is there and is the manipulation of those physical things in which we are partly in control.
I myself agree with the facts that science has given to us and a supporter of Evolution. But however, if one gives a man an explanation to why we fall, he would answer gravity and to where gravity comes from, the man would answer where it come from. Yet, I would state to why such thing have come in the first place or to why it is actually there or even why it worked in such a way. I may be a skeptic of such things but these are the questions that I always hold to things and on their work. I do not simply rest on the explanation of a certain object or event but to further in asking , “why?”

Part IV: The Trinity: God’s nature.

Before I start, I would say that it would seemed that God has been known and that his nature has been a subject of many people who wants to know how He acts. But our knowledge of God, described by St. Aquinas, is greatly small. When God has revealed himself to him, his works are almost insignificant to God’s true nature. This part will be split into three categories: Goodness, Eternal and Perfection.
The first concept is that people described God as good, loving and merciful. Yet, evil exists. If God is indeed good, would he rid of evil? I answer that through St. Augustine that God is supremely good because he is able to extract good from a certain evil. Now I advance this statement by saying that God is good because he is the first source of perfection. He is the desire of every creature and intelligent creature for with him come eternal happiness and fullness of truth.
The second concept is of Eternal. Now people ask, where does God come from for every creature must have a beginning? God has no beginning, he is eternal. Eternal is defined as something that lacks both beginning and end but only the present. Whatever has a beginning is not eternal and therefore time is not eternal because it has a beginning. In exodus, he proclaimed to Moses, “I am who I am”. God had used the present tense, “am” because of the concept of eternal. He is present.
From the first statement, I said that God is perfect and how so? Skeptics argued that things have imperfect origins and because God is the first cause, he is imperfect but I counter that by telling that the imperfect matter that surrounds us is not their ultimate origin. For when a certain plant is generated from a seed, the original seed derives from a previous plant. Thus anything potential must be preceded by something actual or perfect.

foxfire wrote:*This is my first topic in Non-fiction. Just say that i got inspired to write this from various influences


Part I: the Clockmaker

“I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe exist without the clockmaker” is a quote by Philosopher Voltaire in the 18th century is but one of the many people that had debated on the existence of God.
The idea of His existence being neither proved nor disproved can contradict to both parties with one group saying that they have proof than the others. But through this short essay, I will comprehend on the notion of God where the act of believing is not the only way of knowing His existence but to the act of understanding. This short essay will explain His existence and his nature & the seen and the unseen.

Part II: God

I start off with this quote by St. Anselm, “The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.” I believe in the bible, it says (And this is a paraphrase) "'If I am not believed in, I do not exist"' those are gods words. (Paraphrased words)
Undoubtedly, there have been a great number of reasons being demonstrated to understand the existence of God and there has been many to counter it. Through this short essay, I will demonstrate the first two ways out of five of God’s existence through the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The first notion is change. He stated that anything that is changing must have something that caused the change. He also enlightened it by noting that things changing are on its way to realization while the one causing the change are already realized: they are realizing something else’s potential and for this, they are real.
The second notion is through Cause. From the first case, Cause is referred to an event rather than a physical thing. In the observable world, causes are found to be ordered in series; we never observe something causing itself for this would mean it preceded itself. Now if one eliminate a certain cause, you eliminate the effect unless you have the first cause. If there was no first cause, there would be no intermediate causes either and no effect. He stated that the First Cause is God.Where did the first cause come from? God in himself is a paradox.


Part III: Materialism

From the last paragraph, the atheist, whom this part will explain, denies existence of The Divine First Cause or God. His argument is based on the lack of physical date of the theist and the limited nature of man. I hold on to the idea that Science is the explanation of the Material or to say what is there and is the manipulation of those physical things in which we are partly in control.This is true, in fact science bans the use of supernatural beings in explanation.
I myself agree with the facts that science has given to us and a supporter of Evolution. But however, if one gives a man an explanation to why we fall, he would answer gravity and to where gravity comes from, the man would answer where it come from. Yet, I would state to why such thing have come in the first place or to why it is actually there or even why it worked in such a way. I may be a skeptic of such things but these are the questions that I always hold to things and on their work. I do not simply rest on the explanation of a certain object or event but to further in asking , “why?”But can't the question why, without the answer, have ulitmately led to the creation of god in our minds? Saying of course he doesn't exist. Also by asking why, we must also ask why not? If gravity didn't work, would we not ask, "Why do we float?" As humans, we tend to ask questions without asking why not. Why is the sky not red, or green? Because the universe turned out that way. Our universe is just one of a near infinite amount of possibilities.

Part IV: The Trinity: God’s nature.

Before I start, I would say that it would seemed that God has been known and that his nature has been a subject of many people who wants to know how He acts. But our knowledge of God, described by St. Aquinas, is greatly small. When God has revealed himself to him, his works are almost insignificant to God’s true nature. This part will be split into three categories: Goodness, Eternal and Perfection.
The first concept is that people described God as good, loving and merciful. Yet, evil exists. If God is indeed good, would he rid of evil? I answer that through St. Augustine that God is supremely good because he is able to extract good from a certain evil. Now I advance this statement by saying that God is good because he is the first source of perfection. He is the desire of every creature and intelligent creature for with him come eternal happiness and fullness of truth.
The second concept is of Eternal. Now people ask, where does God come from for every creature must have a beginning? God has no beginning, he is eternal. Eternal is defined as something that lacks both beginning and end but only the present. Whatever has a beginning is not eternal and therefore time is not eternal because it has a beginning. In exodus, he proclaimed to Moses, “I am who I am”. A particular idol of mine who smoked a pipe used this phrase... One popeye the sailor man. Popeye wasn't eternal, he had a beginning, when his cartoon shape became. I am who I am too, I'm a writer in highschool who likes to debate and bake.God had used the present tense, “am” because of the concept of eternal. He is present.
From the first statement, I said that God is perfect and how so? Skeptics argued that things have imperfect origins and because God is the first cause, he is imperfect but I counter that by telling that the imperfect matter that surrounds us is not their ultimate origin. For when a certain plant is generated from a seed, the original seed derives from a previous plant. Thus anything potential must be preceded by something actual or perfect.But couldn't we argue that imperfection, requiring fixing, led to creation? The first cause being eternal? Couldn't everything be eternal too? More and more scientists are beginning to believe time is just an illusion created by the mind.

So I wrote some of my thoughts written here. You seemed to only use one person's quotes, which doesn't seem very thorough. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at my essay on the belief of god, and the birth of theism.

I applaud you for your nice wording, very professional looking.

Well, you both put up good points. I enjoyed reading both of them. As for myself I'm a wiccan. Not very common, I must say, but it is what I believe. No, I'm not going to lecture you all on the ways of Wicca, but I do have something to say about God and such.
Forgive me, but I do not have any quotes but those that have came from my mouth and mind, and some of my friends. So, here goes.
I find it hard to interesting that Christians belive in God. A single being controlling our world, a puppet master, a father time or whatever it is you want to adress him by. I've found myself asking this question over and over again: Where the hell did he come from?
If I'm not mistaken, it was said in the bible that God created the heaven and the Earth. He created life, light, the first humans, food, animals, everything! If he created all of this, who created him? Surely he did not just pop up out of nowhere. And the story of Adam and Eve, they were said to be the first humans. Wouldn't that mean everyone else on the Earth was spawned from those two people? This is the part that makes my head throb. What about incest? We have differnt races, I'm sure everyone didn't just sprout from two people. Maybe there's a deeper meaning to the Adam and Eve story, if so I have failed to grasp it. Clarify?
I don't know much about the bible-my mom's a Christian, that's the only way I know as much as I do-, but Noah's ark. I don't see possibility in that.
Aside from the Bible itself I just don't get the whole God concept. He's up in Heaven controlling the people of Earth. How? I'm sorry if I seem, so to say, ignorrant, but I just don't get it. Suppose it is a mind thing, just in your head. Perception and expectation, that type thing.
I understand that everyone must have a souce of faith, that it is sometimes unhealthy to not have one. I'm just a girl trying to understand the logic in this particular branch of faith and religion. Not out to offend anyone, because many can find faults in my choice of religion also, but I just don't get it.

okay, i will reply Loveless questions( which i pm to her) which is categorize into three topics:
1) Freewill
2) Eternal
3) Cain

firstly, we got the idea of free will. God in basic sense is not a puppet master. He is not one that he controls everything or everyone. There is a quote that says God loves everyone that they gave them free will which sums up what is God. God is Love. In such way, that He loves everything that He lets them do things they want. This is Free Will. But Free Will is more subjected to paths towards him. It is simply because if we love, we are more free than that if we don't love. However, We are free to choose whether to love or not to love and every decision we makes, God respects.

Secondly, is the classic question of where does God come from. I had already discussed this on the essay but i will add more detail. To say that to exist is to say that it has a beginning. Now, as i said, God is eternal. He has no past nor has any future. He is present. To say where is God is to say that time is connected with God which is false for time is not associated with God.He exist outside time. Which again is to say that God has no past nor future.


Thirdly, It puzzled me how Cain got his wife unless it was sister. Now i would say that from Dante's work i speculate that the seven days of Creation specifically man is the creation of the soul with the knowledge of God or something like that.

Next i realized that in the middle ages, the creation was based 5000 years ago before Christ. This was a sum i had discovered in Dante's Purgatory.
In our day, we have that homo sapiens were already for million years but it was the last 10 000 years that man take on knowledge.
SO from this, i speculate that Adam and Eve may not be the 1st parents but the 1st people to may possess the "intellectual soul". Still, i speculate this from just a recent review. But if my guesses are right, Cain would have his wife through people around him already. This may be followed by the various "settled towns" that follows in the genesis.

More confusion and questions from yours truely!

Wouldn't that make the bible a lie? If I recall correctly, the Bible stated that Adam and Eve were the first. Not the first with intellect, but the literal first. That Eve was made from Adam's ribs, or some crazy stuff like that.
So, from your last post, you're basically calling the Bible a lier. If Adam and Eve were the first with intellect, shouldn't the bible state that somewhere? In small print or something? I guess you could argue that stating that Adam and Eve were the first humans isn't an entire lie. That they were the first with intellect, but not telling the whole truth is bascially lying. That's like me saying someone slapped me and not stating that I slapped that person first. Get where I'm coming from here? Again, I don't know everything about the Bible, so I may be missing some deeper meaning. If you understand this meaning please help me to understand also. Oh, and one more thing, since when do animals talk? Last time I checked, my snake wasn't telling me to eat a forbidden fruit. At least not telling me in clear English-or whatever lanaguage they spoke-.

As this is a piece about a Christian's belief on God, I think the biggest thing that is missing from this essay is the actual text from the bible. There are many, many quotes (for instance) on suffering. Look at Job and 2 Corinthians, if you get stuck.

Also, you should probably look up "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. I found his descriptions of God and perfection to be the simplest to understand, yet extremely deep as well.

Also, don't be afraid to go deeper. You're only touching the surface here... you shouldn't be afraid to go deeper.

I applaud your work on your faith (which is the same as mine), but to say Adam and Eve weren't the first human beings on earth is undermining the whole Bible (which is brought to light by Loveless). You have to believe the whole Bible here, not just pick parts, or else people are going to begin asking tough questions, which can get hard to answer. Now to address the incest issue...there was no law against incest until Leviticus in the Bible...this is when God's people are beginning to congregate and need rules to live by. So Cain was perfectly able to marry his sister in Genesis because this was before the law had been given, the only previous law was not to eat of the tree of life. Plus, the serpent was Satan in true form, being a slimy, wriggly, reptile. This is why the serpent spoke.

True that i must quoted the bible. I do believe in the bible but i usually take more on reasons through various works rather than simply manifesting the facts through the bible alone. I know the events in the bible but i do not know-yet- the exact details like for example the various verses and chapters. Though, i know some deal about Job but not really entirely.

Sorry, prophet if the Adam and Eve was a bit undermining but i got this from an observation wherein the medieval timeline of the Creation which is 5000 years ago linked to the Man's evolution or the birth of civilization somewhat near the period. Additionally, the various quotes of people such Aquinas and Dante on the first creation as something spiritual or what to say the birth of the material world.

I quote this: "The blessing [which is the multitudes], however, is repeated in the case of man, since in him generation of children has a special relation to the number of the elect" from St. Augustine's work. The word "elect" is defined as the people of God or the chosen people of God.

Loveless, i am not saying the Bible is a liar. True that the Bible stated that Adam and Eve is the first but whether they are the first real humans or the first humans with a special relation to God differs. I take on the latter idea because it gives a bit more sense-to be personally.

Hello there. Here's the review I promised you. Sorry it took so long. ^^;

“I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe exist without the clockmaker” is a quote by philosopher Voltaire in the 18th century is but one of the many people that had debated on the existence of God.

My first question is if the quote is accurately quoted with all the words and their spellings intact. Also, this sentence has no clear subject. Is the quote or Voltaire what you're mainly focusing on? I suggest rewriting the second half to something like this: "wrote Voltaire, an 18th century philosopher and one of many who have debated the existence of God."

The idea of His existence being neither proved nor disproved can contradict to both parties with one group saying that they have proof than the others.

This sentence is unclear. Are you saying that the lack of proof either way is contradictory to both sides claiming they have proof? Also, how does this tie into Voltaire's quote?

But through this short essay, I will comprehend on the notion of God where the act of believing is not the only way of knowing His existence but to the act of understanding.

"Comprehend" is misused. Also, the meaning is a bit muddled because of some extra words and unusual structure. I suggest rewriting this to something like: "But through this short essay, I will build upon the notion that God's existence can be known not only through belief, but through understanding." Though that's also really wordy...

This short essay will explain His existence and his nature and (Type out "and".) the seen and the unseen.

The meaning of this is also a bit unclear. Are you explaining the seen and unseen separately? And how do they relate to His existence and nature?

I start off with this quote by St. Anselm:

Colon is better in this case.

Undoubtedly, there have been a great number of reasons being demonstrated to understand the existence of God and there have been many to counter it. Through this short essay, I will demonstrate the first two ways out of five of God’s existence through the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Watch your tenses. Also watch unnecessary words; they tend to make sentences harder to understand on first read through. "There have been many reasons given to show that God exists, and there have been many given to counter them."

I also think that this section would work better merged into the introduction. You are, after all, introducing that you will be using St. Thomas Aquinas's works and what you will be using them for.

He stated that anything that is changing must have something that caused the change.

Who is "he"?

He also enlightened it by noting that things changing are on their way to realization while the one causing the change is already realized: they are realizing something else’s potential and for this, they are real.

"Enlightened" is misused. "Clarified" or "showed" would be better. Also, in the second half of the sentence, who/what are "they"?

From the first case, Cause is referred to as an event rather than a physical thing.

Now, if one eliminates a certain cause, one eliminates the effect unless you have the first cause.

This sentence confused me. I suggest deleting everything after "unless" or since you already have a sentence about how eliminating the first cause eliminates everything else that follows it.

He stated that the First Cause is God.

Who is "he"?

From the last paragraph, the atheist, whom this part will explain, denies existence of The Divine First Cause, or God.

"From the last paragraph" really isn't a good transition. Also, I don't see how it ties into the previous paragraph.

His argument is based on the lack of physical date of the theist and the limited nature of man.

Whose argument? What does a lack of physical date (What is a physical date?) and the limited nature of man have to do with the argument? They're too vaguely explained to understand how or why the atheist is using them.

I hold on to the idea that Science is the explanation of the Material, or to say what is tangible, there and is the manipulation of those physical things in which we are partly in control of.

I myself agree with the facts of science and am a supporter of Evolution.

I think this paragraph should be merged with the previous one. I also suggest replacing "myself" with "personally".

But However, if one gives a man an explanation to why we fall, he would answer gravity and to where gravity comes from, the man would answer where it come from.

I think this should be split into two sentences, one about why things fall, and the other about where gravity comes from.

Yet, I would state to why such thing have come in the first place or to why it is actually there or even why it worked in such a way.

?

I may be a skeptic of such things but these are the questions that I always hold to things and on their work. I do not simply rest on the explanation of a certain object or event but to further in asking , “why?”

Again, I don't really know what you were trying to say. Try phrasing it as simply as possible?

Before I start, I would say that it would seemed that God has been known and that his nature has been a subject of many people who wants to know how He acts.

I think you should split this into two separate sentences, or at least see if you can organize the sentence better so that it's easier to understand on first read through. "I would say that God and His nature have been studied by many people who want to know how or why) He acts."

But our knowledge of God, as described by St. Aquinas, is very small. When God has revealed himself to him (Who?), his works are almost insignificant to God’s true nature. This part (What part? Where is it coming from? What does it belong to?) will be split into three categories: Goodness, Eternal and Perfection.

I know that the three things you've listed are qualities of God, but you need to introduce this within your essay. Not everyone has read Aquinas. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Eternal".

The first concept is that people described God as good, loving and merciful, yet, evil exists. If God is indeed good, would he not get rid of evil? I answer that (What is "that"?) through St. Augustine: God is supremely good because he is able to extract good from a certain evil. Now I advance (Moving too fast.) this statement by saying that God is good because he is the first source of perfection. He is the desire of every creature and intelligent creature for with him comes[/s] eternal happiness and fullness of truth.

You move too fast through your points; slow down and explain them a little. Not all of your readers will be familiar with these concepts, or have different ideas about these concepts, and will want to know what you mean and how these concepts work.

The second concept is of Eternal. Now people ask, where does God come from for every creature must have a beginning? (I suggest splitting this sentence into two. Ex. "People ask, "Where does God come from?" We know that everything has a beginning, but (merge with next sentence)") God has no beginning[b]. He is eternal. Eternal is defined as something that lacks both beginning and end but only the present. (It lacks the present? Also, I this sentence works better moved after the first sentence in the paragraph.) Whatever has a beginning is not eternal and therefore time is not eternal because it has a beginning.(This sentence also works better at the beginning.) In Exodus, he (Who?) proclaimed to Moses, “I am who I am”. God had used the present tense, “am” because of the concept of eternal. He is present.

You shift tenses a lot, and it's especially obvious in the last two sentences.

From the first statement, I said that God is perfect and how so? Skeptics argued that things have imperfect origins and because God is the first cause, he is imperfect but I counter that by telling that the imperfect matter that surrounds us is not their ultimate origin. For when a certain plant is generated from a seed, the original seed derives from a previous plant. Thus anything potential must be preceded by something actual or perfect.

How does actuality equal perfection? Also, there's no conclusion. You just stop. I suggest summarizing what you've already gone over so that it's clear that you're finished.

Overall, you only cover the barest surface. I really think you should go deeper and explain things more; basically, you need to elaborate on things. Another thing you need to work on is connecting everything. You tend to jump from one thing to another without any visible reason, and it makes it hard to follow. Your grammar is also a bit off, though I can only suggest reading more, reviewing English grammar rules, and paying closer attention to what you're writing. There are a number of excellent websites for learning English grammar (the Online Writing Lab at Purdue is my personal favorite) that can help.

I hope that was helpful.