How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[Sanoy]

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

Was that a yes or no to the question you were asked?

 

[Redac]

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

I'd like to know as well. Is that a no?

 

[com7fy8]

Big V, it seems that you have been told, about God, that creation >

makes no sense without

there being God.

I think that now I do not depend on theoretical reasoning, in order to deal with if there is God or not. I find that I experience Him, and He is a match with things I find in the Bible.

But, if God does exist, He knows, and if He is personal He is able to personally prove Himself to any person. And my experience is I do not push buttons to get Him to do this.

But if I am sharing with Him, this is because He has changed me to be submissive to Him in His peace, and I just discover more and more what no one told me and I did not think up, but it's a match with things in the Bible.

And He >

needs to be accepted by faith

I now understand that faith needs to not only be accepting the idea, but faith needs to include actual contact . . . union . . . connection with God, so we experience Him in His love. And our Apostle Paul does say we need "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. And the Bible gives us various revelation and commands about personally sharing with God in His love and leading, and how He personally corrects and matures us to become like Jesus.

And He's >

not a genie who has to show up and prove his existence to you

He proves Himself in us, if we are getting the best kind of proof.

We can see how well miracles and wonders have worked to keep people faithful to God. People actually saw and touched Jesus and saw His miracles, but ones still wanted to kill Him.

Plus >

You must genuinely want a relationship with him if you want to see him in your life

Our character has so much to do with if and how we are capable of believing and trusting and obeying Christ.

I think I have seen how people can claim they try so hard to know God, but they say they have gotten nowhere. I might not say this directly to them, but I understand our character and motives can effect if and how well we can be with God. And in case I really am, it is purely thanks to God changing me, no thanks to how I was.

So, how do we know the truth

I accept and trust what I find to be God giving me things. And what helps a lot is how God in us actually does what His word means to Him. It is kind of like if you want to know the real facts about a product, you talk with someone who knows how to make the product work right. And this person demonstrates.

We need how God proves by demonstrating in us His word. Jesus said, for example, for the stormy sea to be still, and then all became so calm . . . thanks to God making it happen. I now think it is like this with God's word > He makes it happen the way He means it > Isaiah 11:55, for consideration.

But this doesn't prove he does not exist, does it?

So, should we be agnostics regarding Santa who lives on the North Pole?

I think I have enough to support that Santa does not exist, and this has not even started to be disproven.

And in the case of God, He is no longer just a theoretical and logical subject, for me. And I suppose it is like if I tell you about a very unusual person > I can't prove the person exists. And you have never related with anyone like the one I describe to you; but the person can find you and meet with you. And even if I have not personally introduced the person to you . . . you might make the connection > this is maybe the one Bill told me about.

 

[BigV]

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.

Well, here is a problem with your theory. I agree that there are passages that could be construed as Christ claiming to be God, but there are other passages where Christ clearly shows he is not God.

For example.

John 17: 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Now, based on previous interactions with some of the commenters here, I am not sure the above text is correct. Christ is probably meaning that WE, he and Father are the ONLY true God. But I digress.

Second point, when Christ was accused of claiming to be God, he had a very cryptic response.

John 10:31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

I don't know if there could be any more confused admission or denial of divinity, except in this passage. Is Christ affirming or denying deity? If affirming, he does it in a very confusing form, by referencing an Old Testament passage that called men...Gods! And Christ is appealing to that very passage, while also claiming he is the SON of God.

Now, are Sons of God divine? If so, then all Christians would be divine too.

Oh wait... belief in Deification IS an old Christian belief too, that Mormons have picked up in our time.

Did the Early Church Teach That Christian Would Be God?

 

[BigV]

I'd like to know as well. Is that a no?

I'd say, outside of a scientific inquiry we can't be sure of what we claim to know. How's that for an answer?

 

[BigV]

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.

We are way outside the scope of Santa Claus, but I would just say that Elohim and El and Yahweh are various Gods that have been absorbed into the Old Testament.

I think you might as well claim that Thor, Zeus and Vishnu are all names for Jesus. It will have the explanatory power.

Now, how many Gods do you believe in? When you are in heaven, how many thrones will there be and will you see the Father and Jesus sitting on same throne or different thrones? Will you see two one figure in heaven?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

Everything known before the term and / or idea "scientific inquiry" was fabricated.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'd say, outside of a scientific inquiry we can't be sure of what we claim to know. How's that for an answer?

Even inside , no one is sure.

 

[BigV]

Everything known before the term and / or idea "scientific inquiry" was fabricated.

Including your religion?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

Every one who believes and trusts faithfully and truly Yahuweh,

perhaps even if they cannot read nor write,

knows Yahushua Hamashiach is Echad with The Father - One with the Creator, Eternally,

AS REVEALED by the FATHER to <His> "little children". (as Jesus Says in the NT)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Including your religion?

Clarify.

 

[Not David]

Why does this question sound more like satire of atheism?

 

[Sanoy]

We are way outside the scope of Santa Claus, but I would just say that Elohim and El and Yahweh are various Gods that have been absorbed into the Old Testament.

I think you might as well claim that Thor, Zeus and Vishnu are all names for Jesus. It will have the explanatory power.

Now, how many Gods do you believe in? When you are in heaven, how many thrones will there be and will you see the Father and Jesus sitting on same throne or different thrones? Will you see two one figure in heaven?

Elohim is not a gods proper name. As I said it's a classification. Yahweh is an Elohim, but an Elohim is not necessarily Yahweh. You make the claim that various gods are absorbed into the Old Testament but you don't even understand the words you are using in your own claim, so what good is such an opinion.

Your claim about Thor and company being Jesus makes no sense.

What question are you asking? How many "Gods" in English, or how many Elohim do I believe exist? Do you know the difference? For the former 1, for the latter over 10,000.

I think you need to figure out what you are talking about, instead of talking so much about what you know nothing about. If you were in anyway genuine any of us would consider it a pleasure to guide you along, but you have been anything but that. You left your Christian roots, and what have you to show for it given this that you have allowed yourself to become?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, so in order to make things more fool proof, we need to have falsification, right?

No. You're importing your epistemological assumptions into this. That isn't how it's going to work because where religion is concerned, neither you nor I can control God as a variable factor, so this CAN'T be likened to experimental science where we can construct our instruments and research design to help control for various variables as we look for 'clues.'

Moreover, you really need to realize that there is some compartementalization that HAS to be realized in all of this between empirical investigation and a spiritual journey; if anything, faith is going to look MORE like Rationalism with a Coherence theory of Truth and/or Knowledge rather than a reliance upon a Foundationalist, Correspondence Theory of Truth and/or Knowledge leading one to Empirical or Pragmatic expectations.

We need to be able to test our hypothesis, right?

No, not if your epistemological expectations are wrong, you won't.

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.

Yes, YOU need to go back and rethink your theory---not me, but you, because where Christianity is concerned, you're not going to arrive at a state of faith, a state that is definitively a response to what God makes available and does in your life, if you continue to proceed the way you are.

Faith is NOT an epistemology. I repeat, faith is NOT an epistemology. It is the outcome of an ongoing synthesis of both your own intellect as far as it can take you AND the work of God, the latter of which you can't control.

 

[Redac]

I'd say, outside of a scientific inquiry we can't be sure of what we claim to know. How's that for an answer?

Okay. How do you know that? The claim that scientific inquiry is the only way to be sure of what we know is itself a claim that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, and thus, according to your own standards, we must reject the claim that scientific inquiry is a way to be sure of knowing anything.

Your epistemology is self-defeating.

 

[BigV]

Okay. How do you know that? The claim that scientific inquiry is the only way to be sure of what we know is itself a claim that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, and thus, according to your own standards, we must reject the claim that scientific inquiry is a way to be sure of knowing anything.

Your epistemology is self-defeating.

Well, lets use faith then. Since we can't trust science, we just believe. And the good news, is that we are following the hallucinations and musings of ancient sheepherders. What can go wrong?

I mean, just look at how far we've come thanks for science being corrected by the Bible (or any other Holy Book).

The list is very exhaustive, it includes... (help me out here please)

 

[Redac]

Well, lets use faith then. Since we can't trust science, we just believe. And the good news, is that we are following the hallucinations and musings of ancient sheepherders. What can go wrong?

I mean, just look at how far we've come thanks for science being corrected by the Bible (or any other Holy Book).

The list is very exhaustive, it includes... (help me out here please)

Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?

 

[BigV]

Elohim is not a gods proper name. As I said it's a classification. Yahweh is an Elohim, but an Elohim is not necessarily Yahweh. You make the claim that various gods are absorbed into the Old Testament but you don't even understand the words you are using in your own claim, so what good is such an opinion.

Your claim about Thor and company being Jesus makes no sense.

What question are you asking? How many "Gods" in English, or how many Elohim do I believe exist? Do you know the difference? For the former 1, for the latter over 10,000.

I think you need to figure out what you are talking about, instead of talking so much about what you know nothing about. If you were in anyway genuine any of us would consider it a pleasure to guide you along, but you have been anything but that. You left your Christian roots, and what have you to show for it given this that you have allowed yourself to become?

Deut. 32:8 When the Most High (God#1) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.(Or sons of God in some MSS) 9 For the Lord’s (God#2) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

Look you can mix and match whatever terms you want to use. The Bible is a harmonized polytheistic book.

 

[BigV]

Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?

That's like saying.. science doesn't provide us with all knowledge, therefore, fairies exist.

What about my position that needs defending? You are the one who BELIEVES, right?

 

[Sanoy]

Deut. 32:8 When the Most High (God#1) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.(Or sons of God in some MSS) 9 For the Lord’s (God#2) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

Look you can mix and match whatever terms you want to use. The Bible is a harmonized polytheistic book.

I don't understand what point you are making. I'm not sure you do either.