The way the deities are laid out in the holy books yes they are irrational, let's tick them off, all powerful [impossible]
all knowing [impossible] omnipotent [impossible] always been there [impossible] only there to care for us [impossible] made everything that exists just to impress us [impossible] I could go on and on and so could you, the possibility of deities existing are zero.
There are a number of problems there. First, you seem to be projecting the traditional view of the Christian god onto
all gods - you assume all deities are depicted as omnimax entities, which is not the case.
Second, you assert that it is impossible, absolutely, categorically impossible, for a deity to be 1) omnipotent, 2) omniscient, 3) eternal, 4) only there to care for us, 5) made Creation to impress us, etc. What mathematical proof that each of these properties are absolutely, categorically impossible? What logical fallacy is committed by positing, say, an eternal entity?
So not only is your characterisation of deities grossly flawed, your disproof of such a caricature is groundless.
Deities existing violates all the laws of logic and contradicts the established facts regarding size, abilities and the ability to exist yet not appear to exist.
So you're saying deities violate
all the laws of logic? Tell me, then, how does the existence of Zeus violate the Law of Identity ("A = A")? How does the existence of Furrina violate the Law of Excluded Middle ("A ∨ ¬A")?
I use what God gave me,[forgive the pun] my brain tells me what is fact and what is fiction via my experiences of life, I think we all do the same except some of us sometimes mistake feelings for fact.
While it is certainly an important endeavour to distinguish fact from fiction, simply asserting "Oh, I just
know" is not a valid argument.
We all know what is possible and what is impossible and some things are more impossible than others, Gods are more impossible than all the other impossibilities put together.
Err, no. Impossibility is where the probability of something being true is zero. You can't get 'more impossible' or 'less impossible'.
The first give away for religious people should be the fact that there is more than one religion, why should there be more than one? there is only one God so why the different beliefs? why don't they believe what I believe? why were they taught something different? don't they know that my belief is the right belief? or is it? how do I know my belief is the right belief? what if my belief is the wrong belief?
Your objection stems from a number of assumptions, none of which may be true. First, you assume there is only
one deity - ever heard of Hinduism? Second, you assume that this single deity reveals itself through
one religion, that it would expunge man-made religions, etc - which obviously could easily not be the case; ever heard of pluralism?
Do they ever question themselves like that? do they ever question each other like that? no they don't because they know they are right and that fact alone should tell them they are wrong.
Interesting. You're telling them that believing one has absolute knowledge is good reason to believe you don't - yet here you are, espousing absolute knowledge on the non-existence of deities. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.
Those things were also written in the bible.
