The real God need not a any temple, home by man made, the real God need not anything which is in the world because God made whole universe. the Bible also says that "surely you know that you are God`s temple and that God`s spirit lives in you! (1 corinthians 3: 16). The real God is name is Jehovah and his son jesus christ .
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." (Ex.20:3)
If you were a scientist you most likely don't belive in god. Its just logic . God is not real and never was.
Whether such a 'divine creator' exists cannot be proved or disproved via hard scientific evidence. Scientists axiomatically believe that the world consists of particles and physical laws governing their behaviour. Taking that for a starting point, it is logical that no hard evidence can be found for the existence of anything spiritual in the cosmos. Any indications (like the ones mentioned above: First Cause, Teleology) are more a matter of philosophical debate rather than something LHC will answer.Q2: Why do humans believe in [a given] God (In this case, specifically Jesus or Yahweh?)A: The most common reason people believe in the Biblical god is because they were dictated Him in their childhood. As Homo Sapiens is extremely adaptable to clime and circumstance, one of the mechanisms that improves our survival is the open-architecture nature of our minds. We are born with very few instincts, and hence must be taught much by our nurturers (usually, our parents) about how to survive in the specific environment in which we live. Much of Christian dogma is framed in the context of survival: those who toe the line of the Christian faith gain immortality and salvation, where those who do not face the eternal wrath of a vengeful deity. So hereditary religious faith can be explained as a side effect of one of our principal survival mechanisms: our inclination to learn non-critically when we are children. (But note the afterthought, below.)Humans are also inclined to stay faithful to the religion of their upbringing. In psychology, this is due to a psychological phenomenon called attitude polarization; once humans establish for themselves a specific belief, they seek out and strongly regard new data that confirms this belief, and avoid and disregard new data that is contrary to it. We actually get a mild endorphin rush from hearing someone agree with us, or express an opinion that supports what we already believe. We can see the consequences of this in the wedge partisanship that has run rampant in US politics throughout the Bush administration. There's a Jesuit saying (either from St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Francis Xavier) "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man." It usually takes a significant amount of effort and thought or an identity crisis (such as one's sexual orientation being condemned by one's ministry, or a personal betrayal that is not acknowledged by the religious community) to propel a human to change their hereditary belief system at a root level. This is why missionary efforts even to this day seek out children, the downtrodden and the desperate to mine for new converts.
Thomas Jefferson said that ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. What he meant was that you can't discuss an idea until you have thoroughly defined it. The problem with the question, "Are gods real?" is that no one has really settled on the definition of "gods". Sometimes people are referring to the fictional characters of ancient Greek myths. Sometimes they mean Yahweh, the god described in the holy writ of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Rastafarians, and a few others. Sometimes they mean a sort of non-descript benevolence in the universe.
Without first deciding what you're talking about, this kind of question is unanswerable. Unfortunately, the more you try to decide what you mean by "god", the more slippery the concept becomes. For example, say that by "god" you mean the aforementioned Yahweh. What does it mean to ask whether Yahweh is real? Does it mean "Is Yahweh a truly supernatural being who can suspend the laws of nature as we know them?" Or does it mean "Is Yahweh a perfectly natural product of the universe who just happens to have excellent technology, and perhaps a brain structure that makes him naturally far more powerful than we?" These two questions in particular show another problem: there is no way that humans could distinguish between a supernatural being and a very powerful natural being, which again means that the question is ultimately unanswerable. We could meet Yahweh in person, and allowing that he (it? Who says that our intuitive notions of male and female would apply to a supernatural god or an extraterrestrial?) is powerful enough to alter reality (or just alter our minds to perceive reality differently), we could never know whether he is a god or not, and therefore his existence and presence even before our very eyes could not be used as a basis for answering your original question.
Even if we could nail down the question as, "Is Yahweh, as precisely identified in the bible, real?" we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Do we mean, "Is Yahweh real in a scientifically testable way?" Or do we mean, "Is Yahweh real in a way that we could not test but could still affirm to be true?" Most people would mean at least one of these two questions.
Science has historically proceeded by consensus among people all using the same publicly available knowledge and mostly the same set of intellectual tools for determining truth. Most scientists and laypersons who subscribe to the scientific method consider the possible evidence for Yahweh to be sketchy at the very best, and conclude that there is no compelling reason to believe that Yahweh is real in any meaningful sense.
Also, many people who examine Yahweh closely via the bible find him to be quite the immoral character, especially in the old testament (the near-extermination of all life on Earth in the Great Flood, the near-sacrifice and permanent psychological scarring of Abraham's son Isaac, etc.), and conclude that the bible's claims that Yahweh is loving and merciful prove conclusively that Yahweh cannot exist, simply because his description in the bible is grossly self-contradictory.
If we go with the non-scientific form of the question and just ask whether Yahweh could indeed exist in a way that makes no sense to us whatsoever, then we must admit that the answer cannot take a form that would be of any practical use to us in day-to-day life (one may object that there are spiritual and/or moral implications in the answer, but those points are subject to vigorous debate, so they cannot be discussed usefully here). If a person asks you, "Is it safe to sit in that chair?" then a yes or no answer would be very pragmatically useful. The person asking could make practical decisions based on your answer. But if a person asks you, "Is Yahweh real in a way that can't be fully comprehended by human understanding?" the answer is irrelevant to any practical decision that could be made. Note that some might say that the answer could help one to decide whether to pray or not, and that would be practical. But the practicality itself of prayer is open to debate; it is not useful to use prayer as an example of practical behavior.
The only other practical benefit of the answer to this question is whether one's relationship with Yahweh determines one's eternal fate. One's eternal fate is definitely not a question of day-to-day existence, but it of course is a very important question, perhaps the most important that any human will ever ask. Therein lies both the use and the meaning of the question, "Is Yahweh, as described in the bible, real?" The real meaning of the question is, "Might I suffer even after my natural death, and if so, is there a way to avoid the suffering?"
It is obvious that this question cannot be answered scientifically, and therefore must rely on the type of mental representation known as "faith". Here I'll refer to it as faith-knowledge, to distinguish it from other aspects of faith, such as the trust aspect, as in, "I have faith that you will honor your promises to me." Faith-knowledge is a tricky concept. Some religious believers think of faith-knowledge as a body of proposals that is described in their religious doctrine. Others think of faith-knowledge as something infinitely more fluid than any particular religious doctrine. The only reasonable conclusion that one can make about faith-knowledge is that there is simply no way for any human to claim that his own faith-knowledge is more valid, more true than anyone else's faith-knowledge, even when the faith-knowledge of two persons is completely contradictory. Therefore, faith-knowledge must be a wholly individual kind of knowledge based on childhood indoctrination, personal inclinations, or even conscious choice, therefore entirely subjective.
Therefore, the answer to the question, "Are gods real?" depends on whether you mean per human reason or per faith-knowledge.
Per human reason, the answer is that we don't know, and any facts that might suggest an answer are in principle unusable, as we have no way of distinguishing between a supernatural being and a very advanced natural being. In the scientific, humanistic sense, there is no way to arrive at a meaningful answer in the affirmative. Therefore, "no", or at least "probably not", seems to be the safest bet.
Per faith, the answer is that you must decide for yourself.
Christians and Hebrews Know Him as a loving and protecting God "I AM", one that loves all people. A God that hates sin but loves sinners, as all of the flesh are sinners that have fallen.
Muslims know him as stern and strict God (Allah) who presents the proper path that all should follow in life,
Christians (through the Bible) know that he sent his son "Jesus" down from Heaven to forgive us all of our sins according to the holy scriptures.
Jewish, (Hebrew) (through the Torah) Believe that the son of God is coming still.
Muslims (Islam) (through the Koran/Quran) Believe that Mohamed is one of the 124,000 Prophet's of God.
All three books start from the same "I AM" then they veer off. But, only one can be correct.
I would suggest you read or listen to the Bible, Torah or Koran in your language in order to learn for yourself who is the one true God.
I believe Allah is the real god.
I have proof because when I need help, I pray to Allah
He always helps me, and if i lose something, he always helps me to find it.
There are numerous claimed proofs for god as it has been a central question to theologians and philosophers for centuries, thou through careful scrutiny all of them have flaws. but that is not to say that god does not exist and neither is it to say that he does, but until a proof that is flawless appears (if there is one) humanity is likely to remain divided on this issue.
Below is a list of some proofs of god with limitations and successes of each individual argument.
Cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas (latter made a saint)p1 Ever thing that exists has a causep2 Nothing that exists can cause itselfp3 A causal chain cannot be of infinite lengthSC Hence there must of been a first uncaused causeC The uncaused cause is godStrengthsp2 - is supported by Aristotle's dissuasion of the four causesp3 - based on a key mathematical principleProblems1.Fallacy of consumption ie;All parts of O is PThus O is PAnalogy - Every human has a mother, therefore the human race has a mother.2. Hume`s attack on this argument concentrates on the leap in logic between SC and C,He argues that god is not the only necessary being and that the universe itself may be the necessary being (backed up by the physics theory of interest, where the universe originates from "nothing").Rebuttal - Others argue that despite there being other causes god is the best explanation.3. Its is meaningless to talk about causation outside of Space-timeDesign Argumentp1 the world around us resembles the artefacts of human creation in that they both display complexity and purpose.p2 the complexity and purpose of human artefacts comes from having design and being made by intelligent beings (us)p3 What is true of manmade objects is also true for natureC Therefore the complexity and purpose in the world come from being designed and by being made by an intelligent being (ie god)Successp1 On observation the human eye and the camera show significant similaritiesp2 Again on observation, objects seam to gain complexity through designProblems1.The analogy is fallacious; as the world is considered dissimilar by some to manmade objects. Hume uses the analogy of a house and the universe.2. Complexity can come from other sources, such as evolution ie life evolving from simple single celled creatures to complex multi-cellular creatures.3. All like effects do not have like causes;ie in the case of diabetes - can be caused by bad diet or genetic inheritanceFor example the syllogism below is false:p1 Sue is diabeticp2 People are diabetic due to poor dietC Sue has a bad dietSo we can see that like effects do not have like causes4. Fallacy of consumptionDraws conclusions about a whole thing by only examining part of it.Note: just because these common arguments have flaws does not disprove god it only disproves god argued from the stated arguments, there are nuerous reformulations that sovle some problems and and unknown amount of arguments undiscovered. Similarly arguments for the non existence of god have serious flaws too. And until a argument that has no such flaws is created then there is no defintive proof of gods existence or non existence only faith.There is no proof of god.We can't say that there is no God just because there is no scientific evidence.---There is no proof that any deity exists. There is only the written and oral mythology that makes claims of their existence. As society became more educated and advanced, some people were unable to accept such primitive beliefs.Just as the vast majority of people no longer believe in the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology (who supposedly did so much for mankind), the same is happening for the mainstream religions. People are seeing them for what they are: mythological stories mixed with historical facts.So as Zeus' great speeches from Mount Olympus have fallen into the realms of Fairytales, so follows the Sermon of Jesus on the Mount of Olives. All mythology holds some basic facts,but none can provide proof of such deities.---Just because God is not a physical entity that can be seen and measured does not preclude his existence on a spiritual level. It is faith, which needs no proof. We cannot see what we call thought, or mind, or imagination, and yet we accept that they exist.---However, the physical changes associated with thought, the mind, and imagination can be studied, measured and examined. The effects of a deity have yet to be discovered in any physical form.This does not mean that a deity doesn't exist - it simply means that there is no evidence to form a scientific basis either way.well allot I've been a believer since day one and when you pray for something good to happened it mostly happens so never stop believing in our god he is more than $44444444482292695555555555555555548675847586 all the money in the world believe in god and hell save you a spot in his beautiful Paradise i promise i love god