How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Halbhh said:
One of the articles of faith you will run into at times for some ideological atheists is the belief that babies are born atheists. That this is a belief without proof...aka, an 'article of faith'... is something I try to point out at times, but I don't think I always help them the way I word it, as it tends to show that kind of atheism is really a faith-based type (in other words, a religion of a kind). But because it is that way, it isn't as susceptible to reason as one might expect, I surmise, because it would involve humbly admitting one simply had a substitute new religion, when the self-identity was to proudly feel above religion.

Hm... I did not know babies were born believers in Zeus. Or may be you meant Thor? Or Allah?
Last chance... Vishnu?

Now, don't tell me you don't believe in those Gods. Because if you don't ... you know what that would make you? An Atheist! If Vishnu is a God, and you don't believe in him, then you are an Atheist.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Not sure if you were trying to be funny. But what has mine, or any other inquirer's methodology, to do with how you or any other Christian came to believe (and KNOW, in some cases) that their God is real?

You don't see the problem? Have you ever heard of a term called, Philosophy? Well, just in case you haven't, just be assured that whether you're aware of it or not, you have one, and I have one, whether we sense it or not, realize it or not, or can even fully articulate it or not. And the problem with any human philosophy is, not one of them is "fool-proof."

That's lesson number one for today.

Btw, just to clarify, I 'm an Atheist in the same sense as a newborn baby is an atheist. I don't believe God's exist. I am NOT claiming that NO Gods exists, since "Gods" have not been defined very well.

I don't care what you think you 'are,' you could have the outlook of a hamster for all I care. You need to realize that being an atheist doesn't mean you're somehow 'free' of various philosophical pieces of luggage that others seem to drag around with back-breaking resolve. No, you have philosophical luggage too, God or no god. Again, the sauce that is good for the Christian applies to you too; in fact, we're all swimming it.

I think a Deistic God is very difficult to disprove and most Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, would concede that it's plausible that a Diest type of a God can exist. But, until there is evidence for God's existence that is better than "God of the Gaps" arguments, I will remain an Atheist.

Y'know, your epistemological underwear is showing, don't you? Maybe take care of that while we all turn around and give you some privacy.

Halbhh · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Hm... I did not know babies were born believers in Zeus. Or may be you meant Thor? Or Allah?
Last chance... Vishnu?

Now, don't tell me you don't believe in those Gods. Because if you don't ... you know what that would make you? An Atheist! If Vishnu is a God, and you don't believe in him, then you are an Atheist.

If you are really interested, the impulse to find God, universal in history it seems, results in a lot of religions, because God isn't necessarily easy to find -- He has to allow one to make contact, as He has autonomy like anyone -- but the religious seeker just goes with what they can imagine instead, finally, needing some kind of result. Thus all the religions.

The one true God (the actual) wants only people that can have 'faith' -- which is a strong form of trust -- and so chose someone that had a lot of that, Abram, to begin contact, we can see in the account (in the scripture). Why faith/trust? What's so good about it? Are you actually interested? Or not? One could gain some insight by considering the opposite: distrust. Distrust leads to war. So...in an eternal society, distrust itself is actually a very harmful problem. Therefore the ability to trust, have faith, is at a premium. This is all merely reasoning, to help show how it all works, but won't be of use unless you really want to be more neutral and objective than most people. In the end, you'd only ever find God by meeting the conditions God says are the requirements.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
No, you have philosophical luggage too, God or no god. Again, the sauce that is good for the Christian applies to you too; in fact, we're all swimming it.

So, is God just philosophical luggage for you? What methodology do we use to determine whether a being is a fiction or reality?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
So, is God just philosophical luggage for you? What methodology do we use to determine whether a being is a fiction or reality?

That will depend upon what method and/or cognition you "choose" to rely upon. You, yourself, have already tipped your hat to the fact that you're playing with Foundationalism and Evidentialism, at the least, and maybe a few other things that I can't verify because verification, like anything else, can't always be had.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Halbhh said:
The one true God (the actual) wants only people that can have 'faith' -- which is a strong form of trust -- and so chose someone that had a lot of that, Abram, to begin contact, we can see in the account (in the scripture). Why faith/trust? What's so good about it? Are you actually interested?

I think this is a strange requirement. Supposedly this God created us, humans, with the ability to reason. But instead of reasons, he wants us to approach him on faith? Strangely, this is what most scammers want us to do also. And we know how scams turn out for the scammed, don't we?

Is there anything else in your life, besides God, that you take strictly on faith/trust?

Daniel9v9 · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
I think it's fair to say there were many men named Jesus who walked and taught among us. There has indeed been a confusion as to who Jesus was and probably not just one recorded in the Gospels.

Well, the context of the Gospels is an interesting one. We have mostly anonymous authors writing about a man, who walked and taught in Palestine, among the mostly illiterate Aramaic and Hebrew speaking crowds.

Throughout history, this is how God chose to communicate with people? (books and hallucinations/revelations).

Would you be impressed with my genius if I found the cure for all cancer, and then decided to reveal it to people by sending messages to hallucinating individuals? Wouldn't you have some questions about my 'wisdom'?

Again, look closely at the life of Paul, for example. The radical change in his character and belief is drastic to such a degree, that it would be inconceivable if he didn’t believe in what he testified to. Or consider John the Evangelist, who was one of Christ’s closest and earliest followers, an eyewitness and one who lived long into the early church.

What I'm saying is:
1. There’s no good reason to doubt their authenticity. They knew Christ. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have been universally accepted by the early Church.

2. It’s very clear that the authors believed in what they testified to.

3. They uniformly confess that Jesus Christ is God and our Saviour, and at tremendous cost. Their messages had no worldly gain or profit, but only great suffering. Yet they counted their suffering as nothing.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
That will depend upon what method and/or cognition you "choose" to rely upon. You, yourself, have already tipped your hat to the fact that you're playing with Foundationalism and Evidentialism, at the least, and maybe a few other things that I can't verify because verification, like anything else, can't always be had.

Uh...so now we are talking. IF verification can't be had, why not SUSPEND the final judgment? Why did you jump to theism instead of remaining an Agnostic?

Think of it this way. Lets say we have a jar that we can't open. But we can shake it and determine that that jar is not empty. At what point are we justified in concluding what's in that jar, if we are honest?

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Daniel9v9 said:
Again, look closely at the life of Paul, for example. The radical change in his character and belief is drastic to such a degree, that it would be inconceivable if he didn’t believe in what he testified to. Or consider John the Evangelist, who was one of Christ’s closest and earliest followers, an eyewitness and one who lived long into the early church.

Paul was hallucinating information. He may be very sincere in what he wrote, but why should we take as truth people who are hallucinating information?

Galatians 1: 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Acts 10: 9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,..

Paul talking, according to Luke:
Acts 22: 17 “It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance, ..

And what do we think of John? Should we consult the book of Revelations or do you get my drift?

Daniel9v9 said:
What I'm saying is:
1. There’s no good reason to doubt their authenticity. They knew Christ. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have been universally accepted by the early Church.

They were hallucinating and experiencing visions. Perhaps they were sincere, but is hallucinations and trances the means we know the truth?

Also, the early Chuch is what? The Gospels paint a picture of a conflict, between Paul and the other "Super Apostles". How do we know which is the right teaching?

Modern Christian scholars consider that some writings may have been fraudulent. I.e. falsely attibuted to Paul while written by someone else.

Today's Church can make errors, why couldn't the previous Church make errors?

Daniel9v9 said:
2. It’s very clear that the authors believed in what they testified to.

Yep, Heaven's Gate cultists too believed in what they testified to.

Daniel9v9 said:
3. They uniformly confess that Jesus Christ is God and our Saviour, and at tremendous cost. Their messages had no worldly gain or profit, but only great suffering. Yet they counted their suffering as nothing.

People suffer for all sorts of reasons. I would not suffer for something I heard and saw while hallucinating (if I were capable of hallucinating) but to each their own.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Uh...so now we are talking. IF verification can't be had, why not SUSPEND the final judgment? Why did you jump to theism instead of remaining an Agnostic?

...you haven't seen what I've been writing over on that other forum here on CF, have you? I suppose I can't fault your for that, and I could tell you various ways in which I've drawn together my present state of belief, such as it is. But if I was to tell you, then I'd have "bill" you. ^_^

Alright. Second lesson point: Positivism is essentially stalled, maybe dead, so when it comes to the God question, and being that the Epistemological Indices within the Bible are what they are, AND being that human epistemology of all kinds is essentially a loser's game in the end when it comes to Christianity, the best we can do on the human side of things is to implement an Existentialistic "Journey Epistemology" as we walk into the wide, million acre ranch of Philosophy and human experience, chasing after Jesus.

see one of my other thread's here
“Journey Epistemology”: Pro or Con within Christian Apologetics?

Think of it this way. Lets say we have a jar that we can't open. But we can shake it and determine that that jar is not empty. At what point are we justified in concluding what's in that jar, if we are honest?

Let's not say we have a jar, however jarring that corrective notion may be. No, let's assume that IF Christianity is true according to the epistemic indices that are evident in the Bible, then we HAVE to realize and come to grips with the fact that there is BOTH a human, cognitive side to Christianity that will only take us just so far as we attempt to contemplate its cogency in reality AND that where our human efforts fall short both rationally and axiologically, Jesus Himself will have to pull us the rest of the way. And it's this last part that NONE of us can control. All we can do is decide (that's right, decide!) to keep walking in the million acre wood until we get to our destination. Or you can decide to just sit down in one place in a huff of frustration and die, like an atheist. It won't be a pretty sight in the end, but I understand that not everyone can make the journey. It does require some amount of courage.

Kenny'sID · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
You have seen beings created by God? Or by other beings, such as other humans?

No beings.

I think I said something to the affect of, being created is the only way I've seen things come into being.

How about you, have you ever seen anything pop in out of nowhere or was it a result of either man or what was already here, as in the natural?

BigV said:
And, by your logic, if God exists he must need a creator because....
"the only way I've ever seen anything come into being is when someone created it,.."?

Not necessarily, there may simply be something going on there that we do no understand.

We have no idea how God came to be or how he always was as he says he is, but that doesn't negate a creator, as in, we still had to have one. By my logic, we are here, and in order to get here, something had to be here before in order to do the creating I mentioned, how that happened, IDK, but it still sounds a whole lot more logical than nothing did it and for no purpose.

BigV said:
I think you are confusing Atheists with Creationists. "Poof" and here we are are a story of Genesis 1 and 2, no?

No, I'm not confusing anything, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it was a poof, just as my not understanding the alternative Big bang, or whatever non reason one might choose. However, I still go with, a God is much more logical than, for no apparent reason.

If I created someone, and an environment for them to live in, I'd want them to know where they came from, and what their purpose was. Also "poof" doesn't sound all that intelligent, the very reason I think there was a smart creator involved...very smart.

BigV said:
Also, just to clarify, Atheists lack a belief in God/Gods. That's the only thing we have in common. Atheists commonly believe in evolution, but there are now evangelical Christians who embrace evolution as well. Check out www.biologos.org, evolution embracing site/organization run by the Evangelicals.

I know they do, because they prefer to skip ahead, so they don't have to deal with how evolution got started.

Bottom line..my logic tells me it took intelligence in order to do what we would do well to figure out how it works, much less how it was created, and a God just makes a lot more sense than the general alternative.

Creation is extremely complicated to us, and even if "by chance" could create a single atom, it's not likely to stumble upon making all that is here by sheer accident. And quite honestly it's laughable to think it/nothing/non intelligence could even create an atom, much less our entire environment.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Not necessarily, there may simply be something going on there that we do no understand.

Ok, so why not just leave it there? We do not understand. Lets wait until we have more info. Why jump to "God must have done it" conclusion?

Kenny'sID said:
We have no idea how God came to be or how he always was as he says he is, but that doesn't negate a creator, as in, we still had to have one. By my logic, we are here, and in order to get here, something had to be here before in order to do the creating I mentioned, how that happened, IDK, but it still sounds a whole lot more logical than nothing did it and for no purpose.

How did you come to realization that God was the Creator? Is it possible for God to exist but someone else to be the Creator?

Why are you only positing a single Creator? Perhaps there were hundreds if not thousands of them?

And what is the purpose? Lets see... Before Christianity, what was the purpose of humanity then? Afterall, the Hebrew God Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc... were only concerned with the Jews, no? So what was the purpose of a Gentile $2,500+ years ago?

Reading the Bible I can take a guess. The purpose was to give birth to virgins, so that Moses and Joshua could keep them after they kill all the men, children and non-virgin women.

Kenny'sID said:
If I created someone, and an environment for them to live in, I'd want them to know where they came from, and what their purpose was. Also "poof" doesn't sound all that intelligent, the very reason I think there was a smart creator involved...very smart.

And how would you tell the people about you? Would you use anonymous sources who would hallucinate messages from you to the rest of us, humans?

Kenny'sID said:
I know they do, because they prefer to skip ahead, so they don't have to deal with how evolution got started.

Science is science. We have scientific evidence. We may not have the abiogenesis nailed down, but evolution is pretty much slam dunk now. Maybe there is no skipping, and instead, we like to talk about things we have evidence for?

Kenny'sID said:
Bottom line..my logic tells me it took intelligence in order to do what we would do well to figure out how it works, much less how it was created, and a God just makes a lot more sense than the general alternative.

There is no reason to posit God for anything, other than the very first life forms. After that first life form, we come from our ancestors.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
You don't see the problem? Have you ever heard of a term called, Philosophy? Well, just in case you haven't, just be assured that whether you're aware of it or not, you have one, and I have one, whether we sense it or not, realize it or not, or can even fully articulate it or not. And the problem with any human philosophy is, not one of them is "fool-proof."

Ok, so in order to make things more fool proof, we need to have falsification, right? We need to be able to test our hypothesis, right?

If I posit, for example, that the nervous system does nothing, and that people are controlled by invisible and undetectable strings from above, my theory would fail at a first case of paralysis, right? So, then, I would go back and rethink my theory, and eventually, we will be more fool proof than philosophy that asks you to believe it without ability to test it.

Redac · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Ok, so in order to make things more fool proof, we need to have falsification, right? We need to be able to test our hypothesis, right?

If I posit, for example, that the nervous system does nothing, and that people are controlled by invisible and undetectable strings from above, my theory would fail at a first case of paralysis, right? So, then, I would go back and rethink my theory, and eventually, we will be more fool proof than philosophy that asks you to believe it without ability to test it.

Do you think scientific inquiry is the only method by which we can know things?

Daniel9v9 · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Paul was hallucinating information. He may be very sincere in what he wrote, but why should we take as truth people who are hallucinating information?

Galatians 1: 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Acts 10: 9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,..

Paul talking, according to Luke:
Acts 22: 17 “It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance, ..

And what do we think of John? Should we consult the book of Revelations or do you get my drift?

They were hallucinating and experiencing visions. Perhaps they were sincere, but is hallucinations and trances the means we know the truth?

Also, the early Chuch is what? The Gospels paint a picture of a conflict, between Paul and the other "Super Apostles". How do we know which is the right teaching?

Modern Christian scholars consider that some writings may have been fraudulent. I.e. falsely attibuted to Paul while written by someone else.

Today's Church can make errors, why couldn't the previous Church make errors?

Yep, Heaven's Gate cultists too believed in what they testified to.

People suffer for all sorts of reasons. I would not suffer for something I heard and saw while hallucinating (if I were capable of hallucinating) but to each their own.

Many confused statements here. Again, we can’t just pull verses out of their context, but they need to be understood in light of all of Scripture. But to address your concern regarding visions - I’m afraid you have it backwards, for God, in short, spoke through prophets and events, which ultimately culminated in the person and works of Jesus Christ. That is, Christ fulfilled the OT promises. Jesus also prophesied in His ministry, and the signs and wonders performed by Him and the apostles in the Biblical understanding actually serves to emphasise their authenticity and authority.

The problem is if you start with the preposition that modern higher criticism often does, which includes a rejection of miracles (or a denial of God’s power), it turns Scriptures on its head and it loses its true meaning. It’s reduced to mere moralism. Higher criticism is shallow, unhistorical, biased and riddled with inconsistencies and differing opinions. Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture.

The bottom line is that Christ makes the claim that He is God in flesh. His followers testify to this and I also believe that He is.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Daniel9v9 said:
The problem is if you start with the preposition that modern higher criticism often does, which includes a rejection of miracles (or a denial of God’s power), it turns Scriptures on its head and it loses its true meaning.

Do you only accept Christian miracles or also those of other religions and faiths?

Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.

BigV · Oct 18, 2019

Redac said:
Do you think scientific inquiry is the only method by which we can know things?

Well, give me an example of what we know that's outside of scientific inquiry?

Redac · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.

He actually does, many times. He speaks of Himself and uses words and titles for Himself that could never apply to anyone but God. Anyone who studies the New Testament and comes to some other conclusion is not just letting the text speak for itself.

Halbhh · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
I think this is a strange requirement. Supposedly this God created us, humans, with the ability to reason. But instead of reasons, he wants us to approach him on faith? Strangely, this is what most scammers want us to do also. And we know how scams turn out for the scammed, don't we?

Is there anything else in your life, besides God, that you take strictly on faith/trust?

No, it appears more like He wants to choose out, select, those who have a willingness to trust (and also that are unassuming in a way, 'humble', not arrogant in how they relate).

If one has enough life experience with a variety of people, one will find that those who are distrusting (generally distrusting everyone...) are very difficult to relate to well, and tend to take offense and get into conflict very easily. They don't trust you. It's unworkable.

In a relationship I don't need the other person to give me money, or a blank check of any kind (any metaphorical kind), just a...fair chance, and that requires a kind of faith in me as a person. They have to have faith (trust). That I'm not somehow especially likely to do them harm. That I'm not seeking to merely take advantage of them.

Sanoy · Oct 18, 2019

BigV said:
Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.

This statement is anachronistic twice over and misunderstands everything about this subject. Yahweh was called an Elohim, which is a classification of being, which is transliterated for Greek as theos. It can mean a god or the God. Then we have the English language which means something entirely different. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father share the same substance and equally "God". Jesus wouldn't say "I am God" because that is a modern statement and meaning. He would identify himself as the second Yahweh figure in the Old Testament which he does in quoting Daniel's son of man passage, for which he receives his namesake throughout the gospels.

How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Junior Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Everything You say is Life to me

Junior Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Junior Member

†

Junior Member

Junior Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

†

Junior Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Similar threads