DO YOU BELIEVE IN "GOD"?

[quiet$torm]

even if you do or not. state why you have the beliefs dat you have.....dis go be interesting......ps....i believe in him to da fullest.....

["Young Blaze"]

Yep I Believe, With All My Heart

[phatfarm411]

i beleive in a higher being and everything that dey say in the bible.. i jus dont know if he's exactly how dey desribe him.. for all we know it could be somethin completely different.. its a mistery,, its all about faith

[Ahh Swoop Pen]

God Exsists ..Nuff Said..

[Red Tha Baron]

I Dont Believe In God

[aMERiKaZ NiGHTMaRE]

To You I'm An Atheist... To God... I'm The Loyal Opposition :D

[Cats_Pajamas]

I beleive in a higher being.

[makewayforenkay]

i believe that religion is a scam to get money, every year religion brings in billions of dollars, apparently "god" who is all over powering and can overcome everything has a weakness for money, i mean really, they tell you there's a man in the sky that has 10 things that he doesn't want you to do, and if you do them you go to hell and suffer for an eternity, in never ending pain and missery, but he loves you. sounds like a pretty good bullshit story to me

[Ahh Swoop Pen]

Nice But This Is About God .. Nothing More Nothing Less

God Is The Reason We Exist .. Obviously WE Are Here (We As In Life And Everything InAnimate)..
Something Made This Happen
How Ever You Wanna Look At It ... That Something Is God

Alot Of People Think God Is A Person .. Or Spirit .. Or Time And Space.. What Ever .. Thats 4 You To Decide Wit Your Own Perception

Just Know That We Are Here .. And There Is No Coincendences When We Talk About Infinite Time And Infinite Space

[[Neurologik]]

I dont believe theres a "god" as such but iono. Shit all confuses me and i aint seen evidnce yet enough to make me believe any of the stories like bible and qua'ran...

[Young_Ghost]

"God" is a theory... just like the big bang, evolution, ect...

but it is one that is unable to be obesved, tested, proven, or disproven...

saying that there definitly IS or IS NOT a "God" would be idiotic...

theres no other way to put it...

[GTech]

Don't believe in God... Hasn't done much for me and i hate it when something happens and they say "Yeah, It's God, He Made Me Heal My Arm"

I only believe in science, period. Even though I got a 60. Still, it's all logical shit in the end, not God.

[MANE]

I only believe in science, period. Even though I got a 60. Still, it's all logical shit in the end, not God.

Science is defined by what we observe. One must look beyond "what we see" and observe the quantum aspect of science. Quantum physics opens a new frontier for science because it covers "what could be", and the universe we don't "see" by observing the behavior of light and electrons for instance.

With that said, how can one deny the existence of God while aware that their knowledge is restricted by time. For all we know, science could prove the existence of God in the future.

[Brinks]

Religion was made by people who couldnt explain why something happens, why does the sun leave every night and come every morning, so God can see us when we wake, it isnt about money its about the need to rely on something or someone, I believe but only because I need something in front of me to move on, for me Heaven is my motive and drive

[aMERiKaZ NiGHTMaRE]

In All Un-Seriousness... God IS An Imaginary Friend For Grownup's...

:lol:

Nah I'm Just Fuckin Wif Ya's...

He's For Kids Too :D

[Trigo]

dunno.... I used to believe.... after my friend died i got kinda confused and havent realy tried to get back on track with "god"... ^

I dont know if he exists... who does... I do know one thing tho... Americaz nightmare, god-willing or not, is my favorite slut... shake that shit bitch

[Brinks]

well hey mine as well believe its always good to have an insurance policy

[Showtime19]

Yea i believe in god no question and i understand y people dont believe in him and it's because they haven't had a chance to experience or talk to him but thats because of lack of faith so until you at least try to talk to god don't speak on him OK

[AmicoEternamente]

Ok I'm not really sure, but I have a couple of things to say..

1. Bible was written by man.. man lie's enough said.

2. If I wanted a peaceful world I'd write a book with laws too.

3. I have read and studied many religions and not once have I gotten to "talk to GOD"

4. Somethings though are hard to explain.

5 I got in a wreck and was dead for 4 minutes and 32 seconds and not once do I remeber a light or voices or anything.

6. So why should I believe?

7. Amerikaz nightmare is the first person I hate on here because as soon as I saw the Topic I thought hey I'll post god is an imaganary friend for grown-ups, but he stole that and made it even funnier.....

[Primos]

Aight , First off I dont belive in god, personaly I think the bible is not bullshit but people misunderstood the powers of drugs.. disagree if you want but how eles would you explain, people hearing things, seeing bushes on fire, not remembering they wrote somthing on stone..?? it all equals up to natural halucinogens, like think about it peto, yopo seed, shrooms, salvia, people have been using them for millions of years, and in some cases it had made people go crazy, thinking theres a "God", people millions of years ago needed to belive in something so they took drugs to enhance this vision of a higher power, and jesus may not have done drugs but he was told from his family from the day he was born that he was gods son, so that could make someone go crazy. and as for the "miricales" there overecadurated storys, either translated wrong or writin with someone with very poor writing skills, or someone tryin to premote this jesus as being allmighty because they were on drugs beliving everything he said.

[Make~Sensi*]

Something Must have created the Universe, I believe so anyway. It makes more logical sense that there is an unexplainable, unimaginable powerful force or something behind the universe. Personally i believe all organised religions are now void for two main reasons; 1.They was written in an age before our time, the world has changed so much since then. 2.Even if the message was still appropriate for today the original message has been changed time and time again. And it seams to make sense to me that God would create Humans because like in most religions, We are God's Children. Therefore we are slightly Godly ourselves...we can create and destroy. Also if i created such an amazing universe i'd want something to see it and appreciate it...That is Us!! And we should be grateful for this, not by having pointless rituals but by helping to make Earth (The center of an never ending universe) a better place when we leave than when we first arrived :wink: LOL

[Gen O Side]

Theire is no such thing as "good" and "evil" they were created by mankind. God didn't make laws, infact GOD didn't do shit, the bible was written by the first person who 'accidently' stumbled upon magic mushrooms. Nuff said

[Bull-Pup]

I believe in God.You can't just say the Big Bang happened,what sparked it.If at that point when matter and energy were one,what made them.Merely questioning his existence is proof enough.I hear people say "The Holy Bible is written by the same people who said the Earth was flat." but that doesn't mean anything.If it's fake,the Holy Quran was given to The Prophet Mohammad by God,he couldn't very well write it on his own since history says he was illiterate.He memorized and dictated it to writers.God is here,was here,and will always be here.

[Gen O Side]

^ you keep believing that.

[Bull-Pup]

@ Gen O Side:I sure will :) .

And I forgot,I ain't forcin anyone to believe that...you guys have your own brains and have your own opinions.

[Make~Sensi*]

innit^..believe in God or not. I don't believe faith is what ''saves us'' i think anyone who does more good than bad will go to heaven OBVIOUSLY! lol

[Bull-Pup]

That's true ^

[Bull-Pup]

That's true ^

[Gen O Side]

If there wasn't law's and no one told you about "bad things" than you'd think differently about this GOD fellow. Human's created good and evil, therefor your actions are not based on judgement by a superior being. They're judged by your self, or other human beings.

[Lukok]

I don't know,a day like today not really.

[B.N.G]

well , i believe there is A God , in islam ,<< Allah >>

well , you guys are rappers and MCs , let me talk with the languge u talk

well , can ur lil brother who is 3 years old came and sit down on ur computer , and he didnt even listen to rap, and started to type,imagin in the end , u find a Verse better than urs , and that verse has sick wordplays and mutlies , with unbelievable level of metaphors?
no , u will find something that u dont even understand , and maybe by luck , he would type is or if by luck , so who doesnt believe in God, this World with everything prefect inside it , and everyone who lives and he got take care of , and the plants that go in a perfect rotation around the sun. how this be a lucky thing . and all these stuff need someone to create it. i can type like 5 pages or more from this ,but that was a small question.
Yes!

[Bull-Pup]

I go with BNG's point...

I mean if the Big Bang created the universe...wat sparked it?

And what created matter and energy?

Shit is complex,but I believe in God <Allah>

[intellectual]

The above two posts are...invalid, because, what created God?
And if you say God is ever-present/immortal/constant/whatever it is
equally possible that God doesn't exist and time is ever-present etc.

[mattELITEemcee]

Religion didnt die on the cross for us Jesus Christ did, God the father God the Son and God The Holy Spirit



Yes, God Created The Universe

* Creating
* God

The actual creation of this world was a miracle not explained by natural phenomenon. Even for those that believe in evolution, they cannot take into account how life and matter got started. Evolution and the "Big Bang" theory have a supernatural, underlying assumption. That assumption being a supernatural power, God, had to set off the "big bang" and create the matter that was the source of the "big bang" and the start of evolution. God offers us in the Bible an explanation of how the universe was created that man-made doctrines do not adequately account for. The explanation being that God created the universe. 1 John 1:3 says, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The Creation of the world is the greatest miracle. God created all things - matter, life, and our own souls.

BIBLE SCRIPTURE: I John 1:3 says, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".
A Supernatural Act Occurred When God Created The Universe

* Belief
* Creating

When most people think of the universe around them they think of only natural phenomenon. We see the stars and we touch the Earth, but we do not sense with our five senses who created the universe. When God created the universe it was not a natural event, but a supernatural act of creation. As Hebrews 11:3 says, "...the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." The creation cannot be explained through natural phenomenon, but only through the supernatural act of our Creator.

BIBLE SCRIPTURE: Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

God Is The Origin Of Life and Of Our Own Soul

* Creating
* God
* Life
* Soul

God created life and our own soul. Creation was and is a supernatural act. Creation is not a natural act that you can account with with your five senses. The Bible best explains the supernatural act of creation and how life was formed and how our own soul was created. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Life and our own soul were not created by natural phenomenon. Matter did not create matter. Dust did not create dust. The creation of life was a supernatural act that is only adequately explained in the Bible. God breath is the source of all life. Without God's breath of life we are but "dust of the ground".

BIBLE SCRIPTURE: Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

by Jonathan Sarfati

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
In Summary

*

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
*

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
*

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
*

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

Objections

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

1.

Show that it is logically invalid
2.

Show that at least one of the premises is false.

a) Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
b) Are the premises true?
1) Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.8
2) Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.
Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
Further Reading

More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural ‘big bang’ theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam’s sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.

1.

Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction,Chicago: Moody.
2.

Craig, W.L. online article The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.
3.

Geisler, N.L, 1976. Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker).

References

1. Actually, the word ‘cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made. Return to text
2. Novikov, I.D. and Zel’dovich, Ya. B., 1973. Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11:401–2. Return to text
3. Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., 1981. Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal 243:1–7. Return to text
4. Watson, A., 1997. Clusters point to Never Ending Universe. Science 278(5342):1402. Return to text
5. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe. Nature 391(6662):51. Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23–24. Return to text
6. Glanz, J. New light on the fate of the universe. Science 278(5339):799–800. Return to text
7. Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., 1983. The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe. Nature 302:505–507. Return to text
8. Tinsley, B., 1975. From Big Bang to Eternity? Natural History Magazine. October, pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction ,Chicago: Moody, p. 61. Return to text
9. Davies, P., 1983. God and the New Physics, Simon & Schuster, p. 215. Return to text
10. Craig, W.L., 1986. God, Creation and Mr Davies. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163–175. Return to text