How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[InterestedAtheist]

Tom, don't play his game, bro! He's a time waster. He's already admitted long ago that he's comfortably sitting over in China and, if I remember right, is a Communist sympathizer. So, how much "SANTA" could possibly reside in that intelligent mind of his, really?

Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but although I do indeed live in China, I'm a liberal democrat by persuasion.

Of course, I'm just waiting for the usual "No True-scotsman" garbage to be thrown my way, but let's face the facts of the disbelieving heart.

I certainly have seen plenty of No-Tru-Scotsmanning on this forum at various times. Along with special pleading, adhommining and, frankly, most of the logical fallacies on the list.Present company excepted, of course.

I’m bored lol. Occasionally someone says something more interesting than ‘a you tube vid says Jesus isn’t real’ or something of that sort. I post here mostly to see if anything new comes up.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen this particular questions discussed on CF before. I do think that if we were to really try to engage with it, we might reach some interesting conclusions. Can I encourage you all to have a go? We've been on this for several pages now, and you all seem to be shying away from the issue.

Questions aren't answers. Statements are. So how does this credible hulk thing work with you? Is there a resting phase? Do you need to stretch or something? If you can get him to show that would be great, cause Bruce is pretty useless here.

The Hulk only shows up when there's something to fight. Can I take your refusal to try to prove that Santa isn't real - beyond your interesting anecdote of childhood - as a tacit admission that you are unable to do so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but although I do indeed live in China, I'm a liberal democrat by persuasion.

As one who's been through an Educational "indoctrination" program of the more Liberal type, for you to simply or even overtly say that you're a "liberal democrat" doesn't mean you haven't been smoking the Marx or Mao pipe, or who knows whose pipe, somewhere along the way ...

So, spare me the attempted "save" on your part here. Can you honestly say that you're willing to put forth your most sacred, central core political and other philosophical assumptions through which we might all then see how YOU come by your own evaluations and how those same evaluations thereby play into (emphasis on 'play') your cheese grater form of sarcasm toward Christianity?

I certainly have seen plenty of No-Tru-Scotsmanning on this forum at various times. Along with special pleading, adhommining and, frankly, most of the logical fallacies on the list.Present company excepted, of course.

As far as fallacies go, all I know is that if the shoe fits, it fits. And you don't need to read Massimo Pigluicci to know this can be the case.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen this particular questions discussed on CF before. I do think that if we were to really try to engage with it, we might reach some interesting conclusions.

[Yes, your comment was directed at Tom, but just call me a pro-interceptor if you want.... ] Well, it might surprise some here to know that if any atheists REALLY want a straightforward discussion about various issues, I'm all for pulling back my teethy grin and my inane wit in order to proceed in a more emotionally calm manner.

The Hulk only shows up when there's something to fight. Can I take your refusal to try to prove that Santa isn't real as a tacit admission that you are unable to do so?

[Yes, I know, your comment was directed at Sanoy, but since, as would the Hulk, I've thus far found you annoying, I'm saying something.......... ] No, you may not take it as a tacit admission; as far as I'm concerned, Silence might mean something completely different.

 

[Sanoy]

The Hulk only shows up when there's something to fight. Can I take your refusal to try to prove that Santa isn't real - beyond your interesting anecdote of childhood - as a tacit admission that you are unable to do so?

Why would I try to prove santa isn't real? I asked what the comparison is, so I guess credible hulk shows up for fights, and Bruce Banner shows up for what....questions? Quips? meaningless and trivial triposter responses? Maybe send Bruce back to the lab, because there really isn't a purpose to him showing up anywhere.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would I try to prove santa isn't real? I asked what the comparison is, so I guess credible hulk shows up for fights, and Bruce Banner shows up for what....questions? Quips? meaningless and trivial triposter responses? Maybe send Bruce back to the lab, because there really isn't a purpose to him showing up anywhere.

....I think we both know that InterestedAtheist must be a fan of that fake 'Red' Hulk that's been popping up over the last decade or so.

 

[Sanoy]

....I think we both know that InterestedAtheist must be a fan of that fake 'Red' Hulk that's been popping up over the last decade or so.

I thought about that this morning but I couldn't remember the color. I kept thinking "pink", and "no that's not right".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As one whose been through an Educational "indoctrination" program of the more Liberal type, for you to simply, even overtly say, that you're a "liberal democrat" doesn't mean you haven't been smoking the Marx or Mao pipe, or who knows whose pipe, somewhere along the way ...

Well, you can either take my word for it, or not. I don't mind. If you'd like to believe that I'm a Maoist, knock yourself out.

So, spare me the attempted "save" on your part here. Can you honestly say that you're willing to put forth your most sacred, central core political and other philosophical assumptions by which we might all see how YOU come by your own evaluations and how those same evaluations thereby play into (emphasis on 'play') your cheese grater form of sarcasm toward Christianity?

I must admit I didn't quite understand that. Does it help if I say that I'm a liberal democrat because I find it to be a philosophy that combines goodness with good sense, and that I'm not a Christian because I don't think Christianity makes sense?

[Yes, I know, your comment was directed at Sanoy, but since, as would the Hulk, I've thus far found you annoying, I'm saying something.......... ] No, you may not take it as a tacit admission; as far as I'm concerned, Silence might mean something completely different.

Please feel free to weigh in on questions I asked others. This is a forum.
I do find your answer interesting. You deny that you can't prove Santa exists. Well, either you can or you can't - there's no other option. So, you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but you don't want to?
If you're saying the answer is not "I can't" then surely the only alternative is that you can - but won't?

Why would I try to prove santa isn't real?

Because I asked you to. I am always eager to learn more, and I have been told by some that Santa doesn't exist. If so, I should very much like to have this demonstrated to me.
You don't have to do anything, of course. You are free to do as you please. But if you can show that Santa isn't real - or that I should not believe in him - I am requesting that you do so, so that I may be enlightened.

....I think we both know that InterestedAtheist must be a fan of that fake 'Red' Hulk that's been popping up over the last decade or so.

Honestly, never heard of it. I know Hulk used to be grey once...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, you can either take my word for it, or not. I don't mind. If you'd like to believe that I'm a Maoist, knock yourself out.

... I'll just Marx it down on a notepad that you gave me this response.

I must admit I didn't quite understand that. Does it help if I say that I'm a liberal democrat because I find it to be a philosophy that combines goodness with good sense, and that I'm not a Christian because I don't think Christianity makes sense?

No, it really doesn't help if you say you're a liberal democrat, as if that in and of itself will just unravel your whole ball of yarn for all of us to take a long looksie and thereby be impressed ....

Please feel free to weigh in on questions I asked others. This is a forum.
I do find your answer interesting. So, you can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but you don't want to? I mean, either you can or you can't. If you're saying the answer is not "I can't" then surely the only alternative is that you can - but won't?

Why would I need to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist when I believe that Saint Nicolas does? One kind of precludes the other. It's kind of ontologically obvious that if I believe I think Ol' Saint Nick yet lives, then I wouldn't feel overly compelled to demonstrate that the other version, the fake "RED" version, really doesn't. But there will be those who want me to check out the "other views." Well, in good Pascalian fashion, and against what all John Loftus may insist upon through his Outsider Test for Faith, I'm feeling all good and comfy with my present post-evaluations of having dumped that ol' Red Santa idea into the Abyss. But, long live Saint Nick!

Honestly, never heard of it. I know Hulk used to be grey once...

Well then, here's one by which to add to your ontological catalog:

 

[Tom 1]

Can I encourage you all to have a go? We've been on this for several pages now, and you all seem to be shying away from the issue.

If you have some sort of comparable claim to the real existence of a character from literature of some sort, that could be interesting.

 

[Tom 1]

The point was, that no matter what your case for Christ is, it's even weaker if you can't know anything about historical figures such as Alexander the Great.

How’s that?

 

[BigV]

How’s that?

Because 'historical' sources for Jesus involve hallucinating Paul, who saw visions. And anonymous Gospel accounts, who don't tell us how they obtained their information about Jesus.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... I'll just Marx it down on a notepad that you gave me this response.

If you like.

No, it really doesn't help if you say you're a liberal democrat, as if that in and of itself will just unravel your whole ball of yarn for all of us to take a long looksie and thereby be impressed ....

You're free to be impressed or not, as you will. I'm not really here to discuss my politics.

Why would I need to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist when I believe that Saint Nicolas does?

Because I'm requesting it of you. You seem to think that Santa isn't real. If that's really true, then of course I would want to know. Can you help me in this?

One kind of precludes the other. It's kind of ontologically obvious that if I believe I think Ol' Saint Nick yet lives, then I wouldn't feel overly compelled to demonstrate that the other version, the fake "RED" version, really doesn't.

I see. So you are going to prove that Santa doesn't exist, and your proof is:
1. That Saint Nicholas did exist, and that he still does exist;
2. And that Saint Nicholas existing excludes the possibility of Santa Claus existing.

So how are you going to prove (using in the informal, non-mathematical sense, of course!) that 1 and/or 2 are correct?

Well then, here's one by which to add to your ontological catalog:

Thank you. Nice art work!

If you have some sort of comparable claim to the real existence of a character from literature of some sort, that could be interesting.

Why would I need that? As far as I can tell, this is fairly simple. I believe that Santa Claus is real, and I'm inviting anyone who is able to prove that I am wrong, or at least wrong to hold such a view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you like.

You're free to be impressed or not, as you will. I'm not really here to discuss my politics.

Because I'm requesting it of you. You seem to think that Santa isn't real. If that's really true, then of course I would want to know. Can you help me in this?


I see. So you are going to prove that Santa doesn't exist, and your proof is:
1. That Saint Nicholas did exist, and that he still does exist;
2. And that Saint Nicholas existing excludes the possibility of Santa Claus existing.

So how are you going to prove (using in the informal, non-mathematical sense, of course!) that 1 and/or 2 are correct?

I'm just going to pull the rug out from under you here and cite you a ticket for running the "Proof Assumption" sign!

First off, what KIND of question is "Does Santa exist?" Is it merely Ontological? Is epistemology involved? And what is the nature of "proof" for you in this instance? Is it anything other than what might be found when applying various (but basic) rigors of modern historiography and philosophy of history, such as are mentioned in Conkin and Stromberg (1989)?

Reference
Conkin, Paul K. & Stromberg, Roland N. (1989). Heritage and challenge: The history and theory of history. Arlington Heights, Ill: Forum Press, inc.

Thank you. Nice art work!

Yes, you're welcome. Those folks at Marvel have some interesting artists now and then, don't they? Some of it's not exactly Leonardo da Vinci, but the colors do POP, I dare say!

 

[Tom 1]

Because 'historical' sources for Jesus involve hallucinating Paul, who saw visions. And anonymous Gospel accounts, who don't tell us how they obtained their information about Jesus.

Could you elaborate on one of your ideas a bit, and explain the relation to Alexander the Great? I just want to know if you actually know anything about what you are referring to, otherwise discussion is a bit pointless.

By way of comparison you can pick something you do believe and prove it to be true in a post.

 

[Sanoy]

Because I asked you to. I am always eager to learn more, and I have been told by some that Santa doesn't exist. If so, I should very much like to have this demonstrated to me.
You don't have to do anything, of course. You are free to do as you please. But if you can show that Santa isn't real - or that I should not believe in him - I am requesting that you do so, so that I may be enlightened.

I asked first Bruce. Not that I would take on a broken absolute epistemology like yours in the first place, least of all to tell a grown man that santa doesn't put the presents under the tree.

 

[Tom 1]

Why would I need that? As far as I can tell, this is fairly simple. I believe that Santa Claus is real, and I'm inviting anyone who is able to prove that I am wrong, or at least wrong to hold such a view.

I think perhaps you don't understand the pointlessness of the question as posed. You could make it worthwhile by comparing like things that you have something useful to say about based on something other than some random notions.

 

[BigV]

Could you elaborate on one of your ideas a bit, and explain the relation to Alexander the Great? I just want to know if you actually know anything about what you are referring to, otherwise discussion is a bit pointless.

By way of comparison you can pick something you do believe and prove it to be true in a post.

Before you start with pontifications and displays of your superb knowledge, why don't you correct me on the 'historical' Jesus sources. And how they have their information?

Generally speaking, when we read a source that tells us that a human character did superhuman feats, do we assume we are reading history or fiction? This last one should be a fairly easy exercise.

One last point. Unlike the religious, we, Atheists, are not required to have absolute certainty about a past historical person or event. If I can't prove Alexander the Great existed, or if he was a fictional character, that's not going to destroy my worldview.

 

[Tom 1]

If I can't prove Alexander the Great existed, or if he was a fictional character, that's not going to destroy my worldview.

Not that, I mean just anything, pick something and prove it.

 

[Tom 1]

Before you start with pontifications and displays of your superb knowledge, why don't you correct me on the 'historical' Jesus sources. And how they have their information?

You see, that's the pointlessness of this kind of discussion. You know virtually nothing about the question beyond what happens to go on inside your own head about it. What would be the point of discussing that? Honestly, what do you think the actual point of that would be?

 

[Tom 1]

Generally speaking, when we read a source that tells us that a human character did superhuman feats, do we assume we are reading history or fiction? This last one should be a fairly easy exercise.

Some parts of the bible make claims of some level of historical accuracy, as that was understood at the time, none claim to meet the criteria of some future notion about historical writing.If you don't even have a basic idea of what the bible actually is or claims to be, what do you think can be gained by writing posts about your random notions about it, and why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[drich0150]

You can look in most any shopping center at some point during the Christmas season and see the real Santa Clause. That's right, the guy with the red suit and fake beard. That's Santa Clause just about as real as he gets to those who sit on his lap till old enough to not be fooled anymore.

Christ on the other hand comes into the heart of the born again believer and you are changed. Your desires change, your talk and actions changes, your thoughts change. Your life changes. The proof of God lives in us, the fruit of it is the changed life. It's not a change you can produce on your own and have last, our self change is a temporary and failed effort. It's observable what comes from Christ and some around us don't like what they see but it's real. You won't disprove God by tricky comparisons with Santa Clause. And you can't disprove God to those who know him, in fact you can't prove He doesn't exist at all. But we who are changed are changed at the heart level forever and the gift of it is all we did is stopped fighting and agreed.

Has anyone mention that Santa Clause with the red suit and white beard was a marketing creation of the coca cola company in the 1930s? Kinda hard to be real when you have a confirmed origins in a marketing campaign.