2006-10-13 07:18:50 · 12 answers · asked by skeptic 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Primarily: conciousness existing without form. That doesn't make logical sense to me.
Following that thought, the whole idea about "afterlife" and souls. Yes, I'd love to have an invisible part of me live on in Super Happy Funland after I die, but the whole idea of it sounds more like what I WANT to be real and true and not what IS real and true.
And if "reality" is going to be what I most want to be true - then Gerard Way and Leonardo DiCaprio have killer crushes on me.
2006-10-13 07:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Black Parade Billie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of proof combined with occam's razor.
That is -- all things I have witnessed or experienced by any of my five senses, including the universe itself, follow perfectly computable mathematical rules. It is therefore reasonable to assume all things do so. Quantum physics allows for the inflaton hypothesis, the existence of the quantum vacuum ad infinitum, by mathematical analysis. Such a hypothesis could be falsified by finding a contra-indicating solution for the relevant equations. I cannot personal do the required math; it is logical to conclude if someone can do the math though to establish such a hypothesis, someone has or will develop the needed mathematical analysis to discover such a contra-indicating solution.
The deific hypothesis allows for no mathematical analysis. It is nonfalsifiable. To falsify, I would have to be able to observe a situation with deity and a situation without deity and find an observable difference. If such a deity exists, its absence could not be arranged; if such a deity does not exist, it's presence cound not be arranged.
Therefore, two hypotheses, one testible, the other not, both capable of doing the same thing. Occam's razor dismisses the untestable as an a priori assumption/causal agent.
2006-10-13 14:33:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that there are thousands of gods worshipped by man with hundreds of traditions over the span of recorded history. Many of them have holy books (and some are older than the bible). Many of them have as doctrine that they are the true religion.
It's therefore impossible to point to one of them and say "THIS is the true religion". Or "THIS is the god that created everything" or whatever. None of these gods ever seems to stand up for himself to give evidence of anything.
I have many other reasons, not sure if this is really my best, but I'll give it a shot. It's a lot easier to refute the xian god than all gods, but that's not what you asked so there we go.
2006-10-13 14:22:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't find the hypothesis for God convincing, I have never found anything convincing in any of the claims made by the theistic religions I have encountered. I need god in my life like i need ghosts haunting my house I guess, it's just unnecessary superstition, it's morally suspect also.
2006-10-13 14:24:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The concept of an invisible being creating everything doesn't seem logical.
2006-10-13 14:23:03 · answer #5 · answered by Maria S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The notion of God as a creator is logically absurd, since it assumes what it seeks to explain (complexity).
2006-10-13 14:27:22 · answer #6 · answered by Rustic 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lack of evidence and something called Evolution that I can look at and cleary see all around me.
2006-10-13 14:21:18 · answer #7 · answered by All I have to do is dream... 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reading religious texts.
2006-10-13 14:28:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of evidence.
2006-10-13 14:20:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I understand your question, Tower of babel. Explain that one, makes no sense at all. There is no way even in this time to build a tower to outer space. Please.
2006-10-13 14:38:26 · answer #10 · answered by James C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋