How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
About the comparison to Santa Claus. On the one hand, I get it - there is at least a superficial truth to your implication that there is no more evidence for Jesus than for Santa. I see no direct evidence at all for God - no miracles, no inner voices, etc.

On the other hand, I think there are a smattering of compelling things about the Biblical narrative as a whole. No time now to get into the details but I will make this very general claim to start: To the extent that one can say that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, He did so in such an unpredictable and strange way that it would take quite an imagination to invent the Jesus story.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
what if changing ideas about Santa are evidence of Santa’s awesomeness? He is so beyond our comprehension that different ideas are just an example of human inability to fully comprehend him?
It is likely that the consensus conception of Santa changes as culture changes. It is also likely that Santa's personality and behavior changes with time, because most people change. But how much change is plausible?

This method of challenging Santa can be rejected by the die-hard Santa loyalists.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, Cloudy, that would be legit and great to ponder over IF the OP creator would have really meant what he said, but as you've probably seen clear evidence of, he wasn't TRULY interested in any thing we could historically surmise about dear ol' Santa. I don't know. Maybe he's "got it in" for Santa because in years past his stocking, which I'm assuming was hung by the chimney with care-----or maybe it wasn't since one can never be too careful with the use of a Christmas stocking, either was full of coal or apparently empty.

And if a person doesn't get a stocking full of candy and gifts, I can very much understand the grievance one might have with the jolly old elf. Darn you, Santa!
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December. ;)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December. ;)

Yes, that's an excellent point, too! It is Great Pumpkin month. ^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If I was the Great Pumpkin I would be a little annoyed about this thread too. This is October - not December. ;)

Pffft, come now, we're coming up on Samhain, the holiest day of the Celtic year. We should be discussing the existence or lack thereof of the Tuatha dé Danaan or something along those lines. Seasonly appropriate, and much harder to discard out of hand than Santa Claus.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You can actually get proof of God is not scientific is spiritual because God is spirit and when he manifest to people does it with things we can perceive and feel and experience spiritually. Some day some may see him but for now it is like this, you can actually have proof of God i have it like i said, Santa is just a fictional character, the world also makes more sense with God existing.
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why don't you sleep on it. It may come to you. Or perhaps you can pray about it.
I just need you to make coherent points. If you want to mock me, and Christianity, at least be coherent about it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can’t tell if you’re joking or being serious. Amazing conclusion
What is amazing is that your epistemology was abandoned in the 60's and you are still using and defending it like it is a hill to die on while claiming we are the ridiculous ones. That is what is amazing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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 , perhaps the point just needs rephrasing.

How would you feel about this:

"While there are many ways of gaining knowledge about things, which we can then say we "know" to be true (with varying degrees of reliability), if we want to test the truth of something, the scientific method has been demonstrated to be the most reliable method for ascertaining truth".

Or, putting it more simply: there may be many ways to know if something is true, but the scientific method is the best one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigV
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,604
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,105.00
Faith
Atheist
@BigV , perhaps the point just needs rephrasing.

How would you feel about this:

"While there are many ways of gaining knowledge about things, which we can then say we "know" to be true (with varying degrees of reliability), if we want to test the truth of something, the scientific method has been demonstrated to be the most reliable method for ascertaining truth".

Or, putting it more simply: there may be many ways to know if something is true, but the scientific method is the best one.
Nicely said, but I still want to know what those other ways are.

I would suggest that the scientific method is, in fact, the only way we know things. The scientific method is simply, IMHO, what it is humans do all the time to know things albeit with typical mistakes compensated for. That is, for example, when we want to know if our partner loves us we define our terms, we categorize behavior patterns, we define our error tolerance, we assess the behaviors of our SO, and we draw a conclusion. The scientific method compensates for mistakes like confirmation bias, e.g., "He/she/it didn't really mean that bad thing. He/she/it actually does love me."

The scientific method is what humans actually do (not what they claim to do) codified and enhanced.

Claims like "I know, by faith, that Nirvana is a thing" none of us in this thread (so far) would accept that they have actual knowledge.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigV
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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?

I already said why, it make so much more sense than the common alternative. Besides, I'm not going to leave it at that because I personally am enough convinced, that I don't want to take the chance of going to hell by taking the "wait to be sure" stance.

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?

Anything is possible, and because it would take forever to get into all the possibilities, I will leave that at that.

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?

The purpose was the same as it is now, all that changed was Gods attitude towards us. We were always there because he liked the idea of literally making friends, or giving life, it pleased him, and the way to heaven is still basically the same...be good.

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.

Typical of the Atheist, as in, only part of the story in order to make God look as bad as possible.

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?

I don't think the problem there is the delivery, but that some will always think it's an hallucination unless they were there to hear him speak....not Gods fault.

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?

Disagree, it has never been proven to me anyway, but I'm not going to go down the "it's your fault then" "Some things simply can't be proven" or any of the many excuses. I can only tell you, after much debating, and seeing it fall apart whenever we'd get into the details, as well as giving every chance for those that insist it's a fact to try again to prove it, so I have no other choice but to disagree.

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.

As I said, I disagree with evolution so of course I disagree with that.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I would suggest that the scientific method is, in fact, the only way we know things. The scientific method is simply, IMHO, what it is humans do all the time to know things albeit with typical mistakes compensated for. That is, for example, when we want to know if our partner loves us we define our terms, we categorize behavior patterns, we define our error tolerance, we assess the behaviors of our SO, and we draw a conclusion. The scientific method compensates for mistakes like confirmation bias, e.g., "He/she/it didn't really mean that bad thing. He/she/it actually does love me."

Except that rationalism beats empiricism every time. What do you use when you go shopping and have to figure out how much you're going to be paying: the scientific method or mathematics?

Similarly, how are you going to judge the validity of an argument such as the following: Socrates is a man. All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. Are you going to wait until you can actually demonstrate empirical that all men are in fact mortal (good luck!) and then try to empirically determine why the general rule should apply back to specific cases, or will you instead rely upon a number of a priori rational deductions?

The scientific method is a very powerful empirical mode of reasoning, but is absolutely dependent upon logic and mathematics, neither of which are empirical. So if you're going to say that the scientific method is the only way we know things, you're in trouble, since you've just eliminated the logic and mathematics that makes it possible in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nicely said, but I still want to know what those other ways are.

I would suggest that the scientific method is, in fact, the only way we know things. The scientific method is simply, IMHO, what it is humans do all the time to know things albeit with typical mistakes compensated for. That is, for example, when we want to know if our partner loves us we define our terms, we categorize behavior patterns, we define our error tolerance, we assess the behaviors of our SO, and we draw a conclusion. The scientific method compensates for mistakes like confirmation bias, e.g., "He/she/it didn't really mean that bad thing. He/she/it actually does love me."

The scientific method is what humans actually do (not what they claim to do) codified and enhanced.

Claims like "I know, by faith, that Nirvana is a thing" none of us in this thread (so far) would accept that they have actual knowledge.

There is no "THE" in scientific method. There are only scientific method(S), plural. Besides, you can't just swat aside the contention that is had by those scientists who advocate for Methodological Naturalism verses those who push Philosophical Naturalism (a.k.a. 'scientism'). For some reason, this point consistently seems to get easily, too easily, swatted to the side. Personally, I kind of find it irritating and grating.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Besides, I'm not going to leave it at that because I personally am enough convinced, that I don't want to take the chance of going to hell by taking the "wait to be sure" stance.

Bingo. I think you nailed the nail on it's head. It's easy to convince anyone of anything if you have a big stick and are willing and ready to use it.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bingo. I think you nailed the nail on it's head. It's easy to convince anyone of anything if you have a big stick and are willing and ready to use it.

You might keep in mind that some of us didn't actually become Christian due to some fear of Hell that lodged in our heads. No, some of us, instead, became Christians because we experienced a more aesthetic and metaphysical reason for becoming Christian: The Beauty of Jesus.

Aesthetic Arguments of Beauty and the Appeal of Christianity
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What would you think of anyone believing in Santa because Santa was beautiful?

I would think they were very, very wise people, especially if their valuation of "Santa" was aesthetically bound together in a beautiful Christmas package:

1787saintnichol_00000001077.jpg


Long live "Santa"! In Christ Jesus!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.