How do we know Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[InterestedAtheist]

Sanoy, I'm not here to annoy you or goad you. I'm here for a serious discussion. Please accept my apology if anything I said has proven offensive. I assure you it was quite inadvertent.
Perhaps we should break off our discussion for the time being.

 

[Sanoy]

Please accept my apology if anything I said has proven offensive. I assure you it was quite inadvertent.

I don't believe that your sincerity has suddenly changed, and I doubt you will find many Christians who do.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

In that case, you have my further apologies for not having been able to convey my sincerity properly. Goodbye for now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Don't apologize as if you care anything about what you just did. You knowingly did it, you intentionally tried to hide it. You are a complete fraud. And all this about you turning into the credible hulk is a mockery upon yourself.

Oh, bull. It was clear from the outset that it was a paraphrase. Grow up.

 

[Sanoy]

Oh, bull. It was clear from the outset that it was a paraphrase. Grow up.

It was a strawman. And he further tried to hide the fact that he was not actually quoting me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The wrong one. I'm not asking if Santa exists. I know he does. But it seems there are some people, strange as it may seem, who think I'm mistaken. And yet they can't - or won't - say why.
You keep missing the mark, Philo. All you have to do is explain why you think Santa doesn't exist. With the exception of a few trifling remarks, you haven't even attempted this, leaving me rather confused why you think he doesn't.

So, do you know that Santa exists in the same epistemological way that Descartes "knows" that he, and thereafter, God exists? Or do you know in a way similar to how I 'know' that Satan exists? (see my other thread if you need help in boosting your further thought on this.)

Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I know that Santa exists in the same way that I know my colleagues exist, or my wife, or Barack Obama.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know that Santa exists in the same way that I know my colleagues exist, or my wife, or Barack Obama.

And by which epistemological process do you do this precisely?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And by which epistemological process do you do this precisely?

No idea. I don't really fully understand what "epistemological process" means. I just know that Santa is real.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No idea. I don't really fully understand what "epistemological process" means. I just know that Santa is real.

So, you have no epistemological process or choice of processes by which you generally attempt to justify this or that 'truth' in your everyday life or when doing anything else?

I'm kind of incredulous about your point of view here, if I do say so myself. I would think that someone such as yourself, apparently with a claim that your stocking(s) are hung by the chimney with care, gets your stocking stuffed at least once a year and that it would be something we'd all be able to confirm then, right? If not, then which "Santa" are you believing in?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, you have no epistemological process or choice of processes by which you generally attempt to justify this or that 'truth' in your everyday life or when doing anything else?

I'm kind of incredulous about your point of view here, if I do say so myself. I would think that someone such as yourself, apparently with a claim that your stocking(s) are hung by the chimney with care, gets your stocking stuffed at least once a year and that it would be something we'd all be able to confirm then, right? If not, then which "Santa" are you believing in?

Millions of people can confirm Santa's visits every year. And I can only tell you if I have an epistemological process or not if you tell me what they are.
By the way, you must excuse me now. It's bedtime where I am.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Millions of people can confirm Santa's visits every year. And I can only tell you if I have an epistemological process or not if you tell me what they are.
By the way, you must excuse me now. It's bedtime where I am.

Ok. Good night. And may visions of sugar plumbs dance in your dreams.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Millions of people can confirm Santa's visits every year. And I can only tell you if I have an epistemological process or not if you tell me what they are.
By the way, you must excuse me now. It's bedtime where I am.

...then when you wake up in the morning, you can begin your first school assignment by reading chapter 1 of Ralph Baergen's book (1995), Contemporary Epistemology.

 

[Silmarien]

And why would you do that? Are you suggesting that I'm arguing in bad faith?
And as to what I think I'm demonstrating, I'm puzzled you'd ask. Have you not seen the title of this thread? As @BigV said, "It's a serious question about the methodology used to determine the difference between a real person and a fiction."

Of course you're arguing in bad faith, unless you've dropped your insistence upon scientific evidence within the past couple of days and genuinely decided that you believe in Santa Claus. I've been viewing it as a hypothetical, though, in which case I would treat it the way I would any anti-intellectual position: by not engaging.

It is not that difficult to distinguish between historical and fictional figures when there is direct evidence in either direction--for example, we know that Alan Turing existed and James Bond did not. There is documentation of the former, whereas it is the literary creation of the latter which is documented. Things don't get ambiguous until you look at mythological figures: did Gilgamesh exist? Did Moses?

There are interesting questions here, but the one you've chosen to focus upon isn't one of them.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

...then when you wake up in the morning, you can begin your first school assignment by reading chapter 1 of Ralph Baergen's book (1995), Contemporary Epistemology.

Sorry, back now. A busy day!
So, Philo, how do I read this chapter? Do you have a link to where it can be found online? Or can you post excerpts? I'm afraid I won't be buying the book, as I don't like having to pay to enjoy discussions on online forums.
While I'm waiting to find out what Baergen said, perhaps we can move along. How would you present your epistemological justification for believing in Jesus? Perhaps that will give me some clues in how to put my case.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Of course you're arguing in bad faith, unless you've dropped your insistence upon scientific evidence within the past couple of days and genuinely decided that you believe in Santa Claus.

Silmarien, let's not argue about this. This is just a little harmless mental exercise, only a discussion on a forum. In fact, I am not arguing in bad faith. As I have said, more than once, I am presenting an exercise; I was challenged by a Christian who said that Santa and God were not comparable, because there were good grounds to believe in God, while Santa was easily disproven. In response, I asked Christians to do just that: disprove Santa.
Perhaps you'd care to try to?

I've been viewing it as a hypothetical, though, in which case I would treat it the way I would any anti-intellectual position: by not engaging.

Fine. If you don't want to engage with it, then don't.

It is not that difficult to distinguish between historical and fictional figures when there is direct evidence in either direction--for example, we know that Alan Turing existed and James Bond did not. There is documentation of the former, whereas it is the literary creation of the latter which is documented. Things don't get ambiguous until you look at mythological figures: did Gilgamesh exist? Did Moses?

Interesting, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the point. What do you mean? Are you suggesting that there is direct evidence that Santa is a created figure?

There are interesting questions here, but the one you've chosen to focus upon isn't one of them.

On the contrary. I find it fascinating the way Christians, confronted by a comparison between a mythical figure they believe in and a mythical figure they don't, tie themselves in knots refusing to see the obvious similarities between them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry, back now. A busy day!
So, Philo, how do I read this chapter? Do you have a link to where it can be found online? Or can you post excerpts? I'm afraid I won't be buying the book, as I don't like having to pay to enjoy discussions on online forums.

That's fine. I wasn't expecting you to buy it since I was humoring you, and besides that, one wouldn't have to simply read his book since there's a whole bevy of sources our there in this big wide world by which to become better educated about epistemology. And don't just take it from me, you can put this to the test by finding your own sources on epistemology and see that what I'm saying is an empirical truism---but only of the 1st order.

While I'm waiting to find out what Baergen said, perhaps we can move along. How would you present your epistemological justification for believing in Jesus? Perhaps that will give me some clues in how to put my case.

No, that's not how this "works." I'm not skipping the rudimentary epistemological recognition that is set out not just by Baergen but by many others. I think it's important to say that I have to include his epistemological assessment even in my own approach to the Christian faith since there is no consensus on two (or three or four or five) sides of the epistemological divide. However, I'll do one thing better than all of that you ask, I'll start with Baergen and at the same time explain the general outline of my praxis for thinking about both Jesus and Santa.

The first thing to perhaps recognize, and it is debatable, is that as Baergen affirms "...it may be impossible to work out a tenable theory of knowledge" (p. 129). And what does he mean by this? He means that none of the theories of knowledge available out there, or frameworks like Foundationalism, will ever fully or adequately enable us to "justify" all of our claims in a firm and substantial manner where the word "justified" is "proven" to the extent that anyone would be knocked flat by understanding some justification of explanation about some Fact "X". And in saying this, I'm not even referring to religion, but just to the big world kinds of things that we, or our scientists, encounter and analyze apart from their employment of Techne.

The second thing to maybe recognize is that while we can THEN jump to science and pull out of the box one of various scientific methods, there is a debate that is ongoing about whether Methodological Naturalism is the real scientific mccoy or if Philosophical Naturalism (like that which Richard Dawkins promotes) is the better praxis of the two. Needless to say, it is the former of these two that is most widely held by working scientists, even some atheistic ones, and this kind of then implies an upshot: that neither you nor I can really do science to prove or disprove the nature of Christianity.

Third, in regard to Jesus, other than empirical prayer which is subject to our various hermeneutical processes, not only do the two points above apply, but the fact that Jesus as entity that we even can affirm is a historical figure, a historical literary figure and is subject to all of the shortcomings that are inherent to the processes of Historiography, Archaeology and the various epistemological problems that are wrapped up in how we apply our personal vies about the nature of Old Literary (or Historical Writing).

"Lastly," there are also the Existential problems that Pascal and Kierkegaard point out, not the least of which was asserted by the latter of these two gentlemen when positing that Gotthold Lessing's "Ditch" involving deeply seated human pathos would be difficult to cross EVEN IF ANY OF US HAD ALL OF THE BEST, JUSTIFIED, PROVEN AND TRUE DATA THAT ANY OF US COULD HAVE FROM THE PAST ABOUT JESUS. Why? It's because no one can have a relationship with a sentence that says, "Jesus lives and loves you!" No, I think we can all say that it takes more than a simple true statement for any of us to not only believe but to also find genuine faith in Christ.

So, I hope that this brief introductory material "proves" to be a new beginning point for you, just as it is for me ........ and I say that it is new for me because a fifth point that I would add is that one really needs to take a more Existential and Exploratory approach to Christianity if one seeks to become (and remain) a Christian. Of course, that leads to the sixth and very final point, which is really a question or two: Does one "seek" Jesus, truly? Does one also apply the above considerations when thinking about dear ol' "Santa"?

p.s. Here's a little something extra for your further consideration, if you haven't already seen it:

“Journey Epistemology”: Pro or Con within Christian Apologetics?

 

[mama2one]

duplicate

 

[mama2one]

In response, I asked Christians to do just that: disprove Santa.

certainly does seem @BigV & you are one and the same

 

[InterestedAtheist]

certainly does seem @BigV & you are one and the same

Hello Christine. Not at all. @BigV and I are completely different people. I just stumbled across BigV's thread, found it interesting, and answered a post in it.