Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"Sorry about what I said about your position in the debate."Apology accepted. "Okay, this will probably sound annoying to you..."Not at all. In fact, both this point and your later point (comparing things to a standard) relate to each other rather nicely. And you are right about the Big Bang portion of this debate not really going anywhere, so I will set that aside (mostly). Let me start by comparing science and religion. As different as they are, they do have something really basic in common: both attempt to answer questions that don't have an obvious answer. But it is in the methodology that they differ. Religion is fueled by faith. Faith doesn't necessarily require evidence, in fact the blind faith required by religion will often ignore evidence that refutes it, or attempt to change the evidence to fit its presumptions. Faith appeals to emotion more than to intellect. Faith creates answers to the big questions through minimal investigation (if investigation takes place at all). Faith turns to the supernatural. While most supernatural constructs (vampires, griffins, trolls) are presented as additives to the natural world, God is a much bigger tool that is presented as an answer to the natural world. By envisioning God as having no limits whatsoever, and as the source of everything we can observe, God can be used to answer almost any question. Humans are curious, and God can instantly satiate our curiosity. This is why Gods are virtually ubiquitous from one culture to the next. Thousands of years ago, humans simply didn't know how to answer all of the questions they had, but they really wanted to. So the archetype of God exists to answer the questions. This was actually probably very beneficial to early man, as it allowed them to focus on the more direct issues that had immediate consequences. They couldn't really rely directly on God/s to solve these types of problems, as He/they apparently wanted us to figure it out on our own. That is where investigative inquiry comes in. And as investigative inquiry became more sophisticated, branches of it essentially evolved into the sciences (much as basic philosophy evolved into religion).Since the Gods aren't helping us with the immediate issues, faith doesn't really do much for investigative inquiry (except maybe faith that the answer is to be found), and can actually be a hindrance. As it turns out, the best tool to be used here is faith's polar opposite: skepticism or doubt. If we don't have a clue how to answer a question we make a guess based on the available evidence. But we know that guesses can be wrong, so we basically assume that they are wrong until the evidence proves them right. And if further evidence proves them wrong again, we chuck the bad guess and use our new information to make a better one. This is the basis of the scientific method. This makes science a self-correcting process, unlike religion, which purports to teach eternal truths. The scientific method generally forces science to get a little bit better, as well as constantly providing new riddles to solve. The basic principles of the scientific method (falsifiability, duplication of results, peer review) have been around for ages now. Why? Because they get results. Sometimes very slowly, and at great frustration to many scientists, but they keep providing answers to things. And there is one basic principle of the universe that makes them work: everything has limits. Any item you study has things it cannot do, and things it must do, and will react in predictable ways in different environments. The more we explore a phenomenon, the more we learn about those limits, and often we learn the limits of other phenomenons in the process. You kept saying earlier that science claims things happen randomly. You appear to equate the absence of an intelligent designer with randomness. The thing is, the more we learn about the universe, the less random things get. Form fits function and function follows form. Things do what they do because they can, often because they must. And the only real reason that it looks like an intelligence is behind everything is because we our using our intelligence to learn what the limits are. Intelligence isn't behind everything, it's just behind our eyes, right where the brain sits. We assume that things are planned and designed because those are the only real ways we know how to do things. But to assume those are the only real ways to do things not only runs counter to our observations, but also is kind of arrogant. I think we create Gods as a way of visualizing what we might be like without limits. Indeed, the very fact that God is the only thing we know about that doesn't have any limits is all the more reason to be skeptical of his existence at all.So, while we don't know for sure what caused the Big Bang, we can tell that the results of it happened because of the limits of every single particle involved, because certain interactions just had to occur due to cause and effect. Is it possible that an intelligence made those limits? Yes. But it is not the only answer. If you want to use science to look for God, you need go no farther than psychology. And while we are talking about psychology, let's get to the second premise of yours. Why do we have these same unspoken standards? Several reasons. One is that we need them. Thought, like anything else in the natural world, has limits. And it needs those limits to function. And those standards are uniform also because we are related. Different as we may be, all of us with "normal" brain functioning still do things in pretty similar ways because of how our brains are wired. Again, function follows form. And this form/function interaction was modified by evolution. Our pre-human ancestors weren't as sharp as we are mentally, they couldn't do the same things we can, they couldn't conceive of the same things we can (although there is evidence that our extinct cousin the Neanderthal was getting there. It appears that they may have had religion themselves, which further validates the hypothesis that religion is rather primitive, and not enough to keep a species alive.) Since evolution tends to lead to an accumulation of beneficial traits, we might operate in similar ways just because it is the best way we can do things. Also, operating in similar ways would benefit our ability to work together in groups, which is another huge reason why we have lasted this long. And now we even have evidence that morality itself fits those same rules: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=2&ref=science.  This article is 8 pages long, but I highly recommend you read the whole thing. Although the theory is still being refined, we now have genetic evidence of a source for morality. If it truly is genetic, that means it passed the "evolution test" and is probably at least somewhat beneficial to us. And not just to individuals, some of these principles (fairness and harm) are useful for entire groups of people, perhaps humanity as a whole. Now, of course there will be differences to how people will respond to this genetic moral pull. Partially because most genetic traits have variety, allowing natural selection to do its thing. Also because these things can be overpowered by things like intellect and strong emotions. Additionally, brain defects can wipe out aspects of morality entirely (which would be a pretty nasty trick for God to pull, essentially damning brain damaged people to an eternity of Hell for being immoral when they can't even help it). The fact that people do vary so much even though they are naturally moral, and the fact that they can overrun morality with cognition might be exactly why religions try to dictate specific moral actions. They use the fear of punishment to keep people in line. Rather like a government, doncha think?These days there are many extremely aggressive atheists out there who actively want to destroy people's faith. They aren't trying to be mean, they honestly think it is the best thing for humanity.But I told you at the beginning of all of this, that I am not like that. I answer questions honestly and challenge everyone to think rationally, but it is all up to who chooses to listen to me. And if their faith is truly strong, I doubt anything I can say would break it.But more importantly, I don't think it is necessary to quash a person's faith, even if I thought I could. A few thousand years ago, atheism was almost inconceivable for most people. All cultures had religion, or at least simple mythology. Now we have more atheists and agnostics than ever. When the USA was born it was the first truly politically secular nation. Now most countries are secular. It looks to me like we are evolving out of faith. Once upon a time, it kept us alive. Now, it can only slow us down.