Just read this and thought it made sense.

Is God real? That is the big question. If God is not real then you can play by whatever rules you like. But if God is real then it is a whole new ballgame. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of people do believe that there is a God. George Barna, who makes a living by asking people questions like this, found that three out of four adults think that there is a God. Ask four friends and check it out for yourself. Of course the reality of God cannot be settled by majority vote.

How can we know if God is real? Wouldn't it be nice if we could pick up the telephone and give him a call? Or drive by his house just to see if his car was in the driveway? Fortunately, there are better ways to address this question. Consider this perspective: since God is infinite and we are finite, if God wanted to make himself known he would have to make his presence clear. So, are there any signs that point to the reality of God? Winfried Corduan put it this way, "...we can look at the world and see if the world is constructed in such a way that it is reasonable to believe that there must be a God." Just as the hunter follows the trail of an animal that he has yet to see--paw prints, clumps of fur, broken branches--we are looking for the fingerprint of God in the physical world.

Various signs (lines of reasoning) have been suggested over the last few centuries. Let us briefly consider three. First, the world seems to work according to the universal law of cause and effect. That is, every observable effect must have had an initial "push" by some agent or cause. Every "thing" (a highly scientific term) that we observe is dependent upon other "things" for its existence. For example, children are dependent on parents and the earth is dependent on the sun. Thinking all the way back to the first event, it could be asked, who was the cause? This is where it appears that there must be a being that is "uncaused." Philosophers like to call this a necessary being. Could that be God?

A second sign that should be considered is what scientists today are calling the marks of Intelligent Design. The suggestion is that the universe exhibits purpose, design, and intent. This is not a new idea; William Paley suggested that if you were walking through a field and found a watch on the ground that you would recognize it as a piece of machinery that had purpose and did not simply grow in the forest like plants and trees. A rational conclusion would be that someone intentionally built the watch. The universe is infinitely more complex than a watch and as a result points that much more to an intelligent designer.

A third mark has to do with the moral foundation of the universe. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the "law of human nature." This is not to say that people everywhere are in agreement on all moral values, but that everyone does tend to live by certain common moral principles. For example, people and cultures have different ideas about when it is appropriate to take another person's life, but no one (that would be considered sane) would hold that indiscriminate cold-blooded murder for no reason would be appropriate. It appears that humanity has been intentionally created with an internal moral compass.

All three of these marks appeal to our common sense and fit observations that can be made about the world. Everyone may not be completely convinced by this reasoning, but it seems to make more sense to believe that God is real than that he is not. If that is true, then maybe there are other things that can be known about God. Why don't you try to pick up the trail and see where it leads?



http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html

I disagree with the 'signs' from the article.

In response to your question, is God real...

Are you?

I also disagree with the 'signs' presented in the article.

If complex things require designers then who designed the designer of the universe? and so on. Just because the universe looks designed doesn't necessarily mean it has a designer.

Real:
1. physically existing: having actual physical existence

No, god is not physically existing. Even by theist's defintion, god does not pass on this definition of real.


2. verifiable as actual fact: verifiable as actual fact, for example, legally or scientifically.

No, we have no factual evidence of god, substantive, nor contingent.



3. not imaginary: existing as fact, rather than as a product of dreams or the imagination

Existing as fact? Already answered in #2.



The concept of god exists, but nothing else according to these definitions of real.

Btw, I'll actually read the op later and respond to it, but for now I thought it important to just get out what people mean by the word 'real'.

To answer the OP's question: No.

Thinking all the way back to the first event, it could be asked, who was the cause? This is where it appears that there must be a being that is "uncaused." Philosophers like to call this a necessary being. Could that be God?Why are you asking "who"? A better question I think would be "what" was the cause? Something must have caused the universe as we know it, but this does not point to intelligent design. Intelligent design is not an escape from the infinite regression of cause and effect.

William Paley suggested that if you were walking through a field and found a watch on the ground that you would recognize it as a piece of machinery that had purpose and did not simply grow in the forest like plants and trees. A rational conclusion would be that someone intentionally built the watch. The universe is infinitely more complex than a watch and as a result points that much more to an intelligent designer.Complexity points to design? If you think the universe was always as intricate as it is now, then you have a point. However, this is not the case. It's something like, hydrogen and nuclear fusion, creating all the elements we know.

It appears that humanity has been intentionally created with an internal moral compass.Humans share lots of common things. No doubt, we are of the same species. How the FUCK does this make it apparent that we were intentionally created? This "sign" is a straight up baseless assumption of intelligent design.

1. If everything has a cause, why doesn't God have a cause? Oh yeah, cuz he's God. Why can't we say the same thing about the universe?

2. As compelling as this evidence was, the evolutionerinists still demanded "proof". During a routine walk on the beach, Behe made his most inspired discovery, one that would conclusively prove ID once and for all: he "discovered" a gold watch on the ground. Clearly, the myriad springs of gears in this watch could not have jumped up and formed themselves into a watch, at least not without the aid of alcoholic beverages. Clearly a watchmaker made the watch. Walking further, Behe also found a 757 Boeing airplane in the sand. He asked himself if such a thing result from natural occurrences. Clearly the answer is no, the watchmaker made the plane. Walking still further, Behe discovered a nuclear reactor in the sand. The only conclusion was that the watchmaker had built that too. A shoe? The watchmaker made it. A fish? Also made by the watchmaker. And even if you did find the watch on a beach full of a bunch of wriggling gears and watches with intermediary stages of functionality, you would assume that they, too, were made by the watchmaker, quod ad argumentum. So who made the watchmaker? The answer is obvious, the watchmaker made the watchmaker. You may try to logically argue against the "watchmaker analogy". However, the portrait of Renee Descartes can be found on the analogy's wikipedia article. Are you smarter than Renee Descartes? I didn't think so.

Uncyclopedia ftw!

However if you'd like legitimate reasoning, go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Challenges_to_the_Watchmaker_An alogy)
3. Morals evolved, either genetically or memetically, we have yet to find out.

You may try to logically argue against the "watchmaker analogy". However, the portrait of Renee Descartes can be found on the analogy's wikipedia article. Are you smarter than Renee Descartes? I didn't think so.

Uncyclopedia ftw!


Woah. I almost began a flame storm till I see a tip of the hat to uncyclopedia. Descartes was a retard when it came to philosophy and physics. I'll give him the math stuff, tho.

I also disagree with the 'signs' presented in the article.

If complex things require designers then who designed the designer of the universe? and so on. Just because the universe looks designed doesn't necessarily mean it has a designer.

Who created time and space? and what created that? and so on? Is that eternal? If so, why couldn't a God be? Arguments for theism, go the same way for atheism, and this is why it's stupid to argue. Logic poinst more in the direction of there being something, but if it were important, we would know. But we dont, and we wont until we're dead. If your that interested:
Pick up a gun or put your head in a noose (standing on chair)
put gun to your temple and pull trigger/kick chair away (then you will know. Until then, STFU because you cant KNOW!!!!!!

If there were a god, it wouldn't change anything. God (who would be willing to do anything) would show you anything that were important for you to know. He wouldn't expect you to live by the word of ancient men (who thought the earth was flat). He would expect you to be smart enough to go on the instincts he hardwired into your brain (and I've yet to see a relgion, other than satanism, in a way, that tells you to do that).

"Who created time and space? and what created that? and so on? Is that eternal? If so, why couldn't a God be?"

Because gods are internally inconsistent fictional constructs for which there is no evidence, that's why.

"Arguments for theism, go the same way for atheism,"

No, sorry. If you make a rediculous claim, you better back it up with something. Arriving at the conclusion that theists are full of shit because they can't do that is quite logical.

"and this is why it's stupid to argue."

It's stupid to argue because theists can never back up their claims with anything solid, and expect atheists to somehow "prove them wrong."

"Logic poinst more in the direction of there being something,"

Again, the theist will assert their own small opinion as fact. Occam's Razor, you idiotic little tool.

"but if it were important, we would know."

You say things like this, but then expect us to believe you know anything about thinking logical? There are lots of things that are important that we don't know now or haven't known in the past.

"But we dont, and we wont until we're dead."

Nobody will know anything when they are dead, because they cease to exist.

"If your that interested:
Pick up a gun or put your head in a noose (standing on chair)
put gun to your temple and pull trigger/kick chair away (then you will know. Until then, STFU because you cant KNOW!!!!!!"

It doesn't take suicide to know when something is bullshit. Until theists can provide solid proof that their obvious bronze age myths are a reality, it doesn't (and shouldn't) take a genius to call bullshit.

And whiney, loudmouthed fence-sitting "You can't KNOOOOOOW" stupidity isn't really a valid point either, since going by that "logic" we couldn't know anything.

"If there were a god, it wouldn't change anything."

If there were a god as defined by most religions, yes it would. That's a big part of why so many of them are obviously a load of shit.

"God (who would be willing to do anything) would show you anything that were important for you to know. He wouldn't expect you to live by the word of ancient men (who thought the earth was flat). He would expect you to be smart enough to go on the instincts he hardwired into your brain (and I've yet to see a relgion, other than satanism, in a way, that tells you to do that)."

If this god of yours existed, our natural faculties for existing would probably suck a hell of a lot less too. Since they aren't upt to snuff, chances are your warm, fuzzy "you go play nice, kids" god is bullshit as well.

A third mark has to do with the moral foundation of the universe. C. S. Lewis referred to this as the "law of human nature." This is not to say that people everywhere are in agreement on all moral values, but that everyone does tend to live by certain common moral principles. For example, people and cultures have different ideas about when it is appropriate to take another person's life, but no one (that would be considered sane) would hold that indiscriminate cold-blooded murder for no reason would be appropriate. It appears that humanity has been intentionally created with an internal moral compass.

this is the only point that has not been properly addressed in this thread so i shall do so now

the common 'moral' inclination not to murder is halfway simple evolution and halfway straight self preservation

predisposition to random violence is not common because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous and so genetic lines with these predispositions are less likely to continue and/or spread

looking down upon the practise hearkens back to prehistoric times when random incidences of violence would be disadvantageous to human/human ancestor tribal groups and so would be punished purely in the interests of self preservation

groups that would not punish these behaviours would be at a group evolutionary disadvantage and again pass on their genes and customs less successfully

common characteristics are just those which do not make evolutionary sense otherwise

they will have been around but they will have been bred out