Do you belive in Santa Claus?

Santa isn't real?

The story of Santa stems from European shamanism and mushrooms. I am sure someone in this thread most likely already mentioned this.

And I am sure if we look further into this we could find a parallel story somewhere in ancient Egypt.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do you believe that Father Christmas really exists? I'm especially interested in hearing answers from devoted Christians. If you're a Santa Claus atheist, then why? What rationale are you applying to the non-existence of Santa Claus that cannot be applied to the non-existence of your God?

I do not believe in Santa Claus because if he did exist, then there would exist evidence for his existence. For instance, pictures, video tape, etc. He'd especially be easy to spot in the night sky on Christmas eve. One could even set up cameras around the tree and wait for him to pass by to deliver presents.

On the other hand, God as he is traditionally defined is a supernatural being who transcends the natural world, which means that even if God did exist, we wouldn't be able to sense him with our eyes, ears, noses, etc., unless he condescended himself (for instance, came down as a human being). Finally, you can see that something exists by examining effects. The universe is just one giant effect that is best explained by God. The universe is indirect evidence for God's existence.

reply to post by Sleepwalk7



The universe is direct evidence that the universe exists.

God is direct evidence that humans are superstitious creatures with fertile imaginations, who sometimes place too much faith in unsupported claims.

Santa is in no way more mythical than god. His existence can be supported every bit as much, using the same standards. Doesn't that make you wonder at all...not even the tiniest bit?

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by Sleepwalk7

 

The universe is direct evidence that the universe exists.

Notice how I said the universe is an effect and indirect evidence for God's existence.

Santa is in no way more mythical than god. His existence can be supported every bit as much, using the same standards. Doesn't that make you wonder at all...not even the tiniest bit?

I don't think God and Santa are conceptually equal for reasons I've already explained and which you dodged. Feel free to address what I wrote in my previous post.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

Notice how I said the universe is an effect and indirect evidence for God's existence.

I got that. I just pointed out the obvious fallacy in your statement. First, before attributing anything to god (indirectly or otherwise), he would need to exist. Assuming he does, stating he does, or believing he does, doesn't make it so. The universe could be similarly attributed to the Spaghetti Monster and substantiated to the same level.

I don't think God and Santa are conceptually equal for reasons I've already explained and which you dodged. Feel free to address what I wrote in my previous post.

edit on 18-7-2012 by Sleepwalk7 because: (no reason given)

I didn't so much dodge them, as entirely dismiss them. They are exactly what we would expect and entirely consistent with any other magical being that doesn't exist ie. Santa (spaghetti monsters, unicorns, elves, fairies etc).

All you have shown, is that if you were to assume gods existence it would be fair to believe that no one has ever found him, because you think he is magic. No different to Santa (elves, unicorns etc).

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

Notice how I said the universe is an effect and indirect evidence for God's existence.

I got that. I just pointed out the obvious fallacy in your statement.

What fallacy? Formal or informal? Point it out.

First, before attributing anything to god (indirectly or otherwise), he would need to exist. Assuming he does, stating he does, or believing he does, doesn't make it so.

God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe; and by universe I mean all of materiality. I'm using inference to the best explanation or abduction to reason that God or a being very similar to what we would call God exists.

The universe could be similarly attributed to the Spaghetti Monster and substantiated to the same level.

Not unless the Spaghetti Monster possessed the same attributes as God. And if the so-called Spaghetti Monster did possess the same attributes as God, as He's normally defined in monotheism, then all you're doing is calling God by another name which is just irrelevant and semantical.

I didn't so much dodge them, as entirely dismiss them. They are exactly what we would expect and entirely consistent with any other magical being that doesn't exist ie. Santa (spaghetti monsters, unicorns, elves, fairies etc).

No, like I wrote previously, if Santa Claus existed, then we would be able to readily apprehend him with our basic senses. We would also expect him to be flying around on Christmas Eve delivering presents to all good boys and girls.

But if God did indeed exist, we wouldn't be able to readily apprehend him with out five basic senses. Not unless he condescended himself in some way, like coming down as a human (interesting that Christianity teaches that God did just that).

All you have shown, is that if you were to assume gods existence it would be fair to believe that no one has ever found him, because you think he is magic.

God isn't magic. He's maximally powerful and immaterial. And if an immaterial being existed--or a being that transcended the natural world existed--then it would be unlikely that he/she/it would leave behind direct empirical evidence. This is completely different from what we would expect if Santa Claus really did exist. That being said, one could look at the existence and nature of the world around us and infer that God is the best explanation for its existence as opposed to the universe being past-infinite or coming into being from nonbeing. This means the universe could be seen as implicit evidence for God's existence.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Do you believe that Father Christmas really exists? I'm especially interested in hearing answers from devoted Christians. If you're a Santa Claus atheist, then why? What rationale are you applying to the non-existence of Santa Claus that cannot be applied to the non-existence of your God?

I do. And I think that St. Nicholas was immitating what he knew of the elder resurrected Jesus.

Here's my "Od to Santa Claus" (and I don't mean the Pope)

Why did the Pope dress up as Santa?

Side Note: Towards the end of that thread I went a little bonkers, having come under severe spiritual attack (what do you expect when you appear to go after the Pope..?) which I was desperately trying to work through, and it didn't help that someone affiliated with certain PTB showed up at ATS immediately after I started the thread to intimidate me.. Plus, the hidden and otherwise unresolved mystery of Christmas often tended to do that to me, in years past, but not any more.. !

Here's a couple of other threads I've done re: the historical Jesus, which also shed some light on the mystery, one that I've approached like Sherlock Holmes.

Zoom+Scroll Leonardo da Vinci's Blasphemous Joke "The Last Supper" in High Res

The Woman @ The Well: How the Historical Jesus Performed a "Miracle" + Reflections

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the actual myth about Santa Clause with the sleigh, reindeer, north pole etc. but it's an excellent metaphor for the spirit of Christmas, and if there was a role for me I'd be Rudolf, although Jesus is also a good type for the Rudolf figure, although in his case he does the FULL circle and I mean the WHOLE thing, which would mean his "mode of transporation" is um..transluminal!

Best Regards,

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

What fallacy? Formal or informal? Point it out.

In your own words...

"The universe is just one giant effect that is best explained by God. The universe is indirect evidence for God's existence"

Attributing the universe to be an effect of something with no known existence, based only on an assumption that it does, or must exist = fallacy.

From wikipedia- "a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption."

Petitio principii - arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.

For something to be an effect of god, would first require the assumption that god exists.....I don't think so.

First, please establish that god exists at all. Not via secondary phenomena, indirect assumptions, speculative inference, circular reasoning, or belief. Especially not via cult doctrines/ stories. Then he can be more than a belief, then he can be more than Santa. Then we can debate whether he had anything to do with the universe.

God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe; and by universe I mean all of materiality. I'm using inference to the best explanation or abduction to reason that God or a being very similar to what we would call God exists.

No, god is not a real explanation at all. Real explanations are able to be genuinely substantiated, stand up to scrutiny and above all have the possibility of being falsified. god can neither be proven nor disproven, he is not falsifiable (like Santa), he is purely a belief. One that usually inhabits the imagination of those suitably indoctrinated. Often by some religious cult and/or its farcical doctrine ie. christianity.

I say Santa is a better explanation. At least he appears to be jolly.

Unless you can substantiate your claim directly, that a god exists.

Not unless the Spaghetti Monster possessed the same attributes as God.

He does. As does Santa. As do pink Unicorns. All mythical beings share the attribute of being mythical. Unless you can directly prove one of them ie. god, is different.

No, like I wrote previously, if Santa Claus existed, then we would be able to readily apprehend him with our basic senses. We would also expect him to be flying around on Christmas Eve delivering presents to all good boys and girls.

No.You wouldn't perceive him unless you had faith and truly believed, then he might show you that he exists via religious delusions and meaningful coincidence. Then you could become devout. Or he might not either, as a way of testing your faith. He is a supernatural being. Need I say more?

God isn't magic

I agree, then why do attribute magic to him?

He's maximally powerful and immaterial.

...and he also does a wonderful impersonation of something that is completely non existent. Like Santa. Funny thing that.....

That being said, one could look at the existence and nature of the world around us and infer that God is the best explanation for its existence

They could, but that would be a complete assumption based on superstitious ignorance. In fact, many religious brainwashing cults do just that.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Nothing wrong with suspending belief for small children once a year. The problem with religion, is that it abuses that childish belief by wrapping a whole belief system around it, that one is to live their life by.

If you believe in Santa and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing--but if you don't believe in Santa and turn out to be incorrect, you will not get a present. Therefore it is foolish to not believe in Santa.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Attributing the universe to be an effect of something with no known existence, based only on an assumption that it does, or must exist = fallacy.

What kind of fallacy though? Informal or formal? And what is the name of it?

Petitio principii - arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.

That's not what I'm doing though. In lieu of the irrationality and lack of evidence for nonbeing producing being, as well as the universe being past-infinite, I've decided that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. A necessary, immaterial, extremely powerful (enough to produce the universe) being who is the first cause.

For something to be an effect of god, would first require the assumption that god exists.....I don't think so.

Well first you need to start with the effect (the natural world). What could of caused the natural world? It couldn't be more materiality or more natural processes, since we're talking about the beginning of the natural world. Which means if the universe truly had a beginning, then we're left with the idea that the universe was produced by nonbeing (uncaused)--or the idea that the universe was produced by a cause that is part of a category separate from the natural world. I find the idea that the natural world could be produced by not anything--or that without properties--to be incoherent, so I go with the idea that the universe was produced by a cause. So far we have a necessary cause that is beyond or not of the natural world which is sufficiently powerful to create a universe like ours.

No, god is not a real explanation at all. Real explanations are able to be genuinely substantiated, stand up to scrutiny and above all have the possibility of being falsified.

You're throwing around a lot of terms and phrases without defining them. What do you mean by "genuinely substantiated," and "stand up to scrutiny"? Also, an explanation doesn't have to be falsifiable for it to be the correct explanation, especially when we're talking about things outside of the scope of science. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable in science is to say that it is possible to observe or conduct an experiment that could contradict that hypothesis. But since we're discussing the possibility of a supernatural being, this is irrelevant. However, one could possibly falsify God by using reason to show that He's logically incoherent or by showing that if God did exist, then we would expect the world to look a certain way--or we would expect this much evidence for His existence.

He does. As does Santa. As do pink Unicorns.

Your definition of Santa and a unicorn is a being who is necessary, immaterial, and sufficiently powerful to produce a universe like ours?

No.You wouldn't perceive him unless you had faith and truly believed

No, I'm pretty sure if Santa existed then he'd be flying around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents. He'd also have a factory/home in the North Pole with elves. But we do not observe Santa flying around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents, nor do we observe a factory/home in the North Pole filled with elves.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

What kind of fallacy though? Informal or formal? And what is the name of it?

Already covered, as meant originally in the common and general usage of the term fallacy (misleading, derived from an error in reasoning etc). Exactly what it is.

Though only as you specifically asked and seem to find it necessary, one type of recognised common (informal) fallacy already mentioned. Though your entire argument could be summed up under the broader fallacy of "god of the gaps". Replacing ignorance with the supernatural/magic (god).

en.wikipedia.org...

That's not what I'm doing though. In lieu of the irrationality and lack of evidence for nonbeing producing being, as well as the universe being past-infinite, I've decided that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. A necessary, immaterial, extremely powerful (enough to produce the universe) being who is the first cause.

You are saying, essentially...

The universe needs a creator (complete assumption)
Therefore god created the universe (more complete assumption)
Therefore the universe is proof of god's existence (assumption on top of assumption = fallacy)

No matter how you word it, or whether you believe it reasonable, god is assumed and becomes the first cause, which in the end is simply using god to prove god. Leading to..... god must have created the universe, because the universe is proof that he did. Fine for a personal opinion, but still a fallacy unless you can show that god exists first. It also fits description of a type of petitio principii/begging the question ie. the universe needs a creator - obviously must be god.

"The begging the question fallacy is committed when the argument offered requires us to either assume that the conclusion is true or that a controversial premise is true that would make the conclusion a trivial consequence. These arguments provide none of the evidence that would be required to prove the conclusion is true."
ethicalrealism.wordpress.com...

rationalwiki.org...

The premise that the universe needs a creator or cannot have natural causes, is an assumption, a controversial premise in this sense with no real backing, implied as fact when it is only a possibility (as yet). If you did not take this for granted, the rest would be an open question. Instead, your conclusion that god did it is also an assumption with nothing to back it.

Your argument seems to amount to the simple creationist non argument, just structured a little differently. In essence, the same thing. Implying that the universe needs a creator to fit god in somewhere.


Though from your claims so far, you could also add others. Argument from final consequences, argument from personal incredulity, non sequiter etc. Your whole argument can be summed up as "god of the gaps", though in this instance, not just filling in gaps but even replacing what we do know, with god.

Welcome to your opinion, of course. Fallacy or otherwise

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
You're throwing around a lot of terms and phrases without defining them. What do you mean by "genuinely substantiated," and "stand up to scrutiny"?

You really don't understand this concept without having it defined? I have certainly outlined what doesn't substantiate religious claims to most reasonable people. Read it and go from there. How would I substantiate the elves that certainly do live in my garden?

Cosmological/big bang theory, accretion theory, abiogenesis hypothesis, evolutionary theory, germ theory of disease etc. etc. etc.....all have/had to be substantiated and subject to intense scrutiny, so far at least, no god. Yet you seem to overlook this in your claim that god did it. He might have, but there is no reason (outside of personal belief) to assume so, or that he exists any more than Santa does.

Your god of the gaps argument overlooks what we do know of the universe that is already explainable by natural processes, also the possibility (some would say likelihood) that it might all be explainable without needing god.

Also, an explanation doesn't have to be falsifiable for it to be the correct explanation, especially when we're talking about things outside of the scope of science.

True, exactly why Santa is real...

However, one could possibly falsify God by using reason

To reasonable people, perhaps.....Though in a true sense, no. Same for Unicorns.

Your definition of Santa and a unicorn is a being who is necessary, immaterial, and sufficiently powerful to produce a universe like ours?

No it highlights the opposite.

No, I'm pretty sure if Santa existed then he'd be flying around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents. He'd also have a factory/home in the North Pole with elves

He does exist as a fact, whether he delivers your presents or not. You don't see it because you are a Santa heathen. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Already covered, as meant originally in the common and general usage of the term fallacy (misleading, derived from an error in reasoning etc). Exactly what it is.

Though only as you specifically asked and seem to find it necessary, one type of recognised common (informal) fallacy already mentioned. Though your entire argument could be summed up under the broader fallacy of "god of the gaps". Replacing ignorance with the supernatural/magic (god).

No, the reasoning I'm using is called abduction or inference to the best possible explanation. God of the gaps is when you say, "I don't know; therefore, God." But actually, I'm using my intuition, reason, and knowledge (scientific evidence) to analyze the possible explanations for the beginning of the universe, and then concluding that the best explanation is God.

You are saying, essentially...

The universe needs a creator (complete assumption)

Well, no, it's not an assumption, but an inference. So I would say you're committing the straw man fallacy.

The premise that the universe needs a creator or cannot have natural causes, is an assumption, a controversial premise in this sense with no real backing, implied as fact when it is only a possibility (as yet).

That's not a premise but an argument. The premises would be what I wrote in my previous post about nonbeing not having the causal powers necessary to bring into being the universe--or that the universe cannot be past infinite. Therefore, a supernatural first cause is the best explanation.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

You really don't understand this concept without having it defined?

No, I don't know how you define the terms and words because from my vantage point God is very much substantiated with evidence. What this means is we differ in ours definitions.

How would I substantiate the elves that certainly do live in my garden?

Elves are physical beings so they would leave behind clothing, refuse, housing, etc. You would also be able to see elves if they did exist. But since you haven't seen any elves in your garden, nor stumbled upon their refuse, clothing, or housing, then you'd be rational to conclude that elves most likely do not live in your backyard.

Cosmological/big bang theory, accretion theory, abiogenesis hypothesis, evolutionary theory, germ theory of disease etc. etc. etc.....all have/had to be substantiated and subject to intense scrutiny, so far at least, no god.

The issue here is you're making a category mistake. God by definition is a being that transcends nature. Meaning, if He did indeed exist (and I think He does), then you wouldn't be able to sense Him using your basic senses--nor would you be able to test him in a lab somewhere.

True, exactly why Santa is real...

Well, perhaps you do believe in Santa, but I don't because if Santa did exist then he'd be flying around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents. He'd also have a factory/home in the North Pole with elves. But we do not observe Santa flying around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents, nor do we observe a factory/home in the North Pole filled with elves.

To reasonable people, perhaps.....Though in a true sense, no. Same for Unicorns.

Well, no, one could "falsify" God by using reason by showing that He's logically incoherent or that His existence is improbable given the existence of the universe and the way it behaves. As for unicorns, one could falsify unicorns in the same way they could falsify Santa.

This is a troll thread .

reply to post by Sleepwalk7


Thank you for helping me see the light, that all of existence can only be explainable ultimately through the supernatural (magic), because you say so. Proof positive if ever there was any! Obviously devoid of complete guesses in every way. Apparently, there can never be an error in reasoning once that three lettered word (god) is used. Some would go as far as to say it isn't even applicable to the subject, due to anything resembling reason and logic disappearing faster than a rat off a ship, at the mere mention of it.

I still think you unfairly overlook Santa, as far as gods go. He has been proved, by your own standards. You get presents don't you? What more empirical proof do you need? Worship him and you will get more, he loves you so much you probably still get presents even with your attitude, which I must say is a bit lacking. He works in this world in mysterious supernatural ways and will make it happen. Those that give the presents are simply doing god/santa's will, whether they know it or not. Don't take my word for it, pray and you will see.

He is also celebrated far more than any other god, at the relevant time of year. I think you will find far more people in Christian countries partaking of the “Christmas cheer” that Santa directly and magically engenders, than paying homage to some other god, at Christmas. Thus, by extension, he must be “more truer” than any other god. As I have used the word god, this obviously exempts this notion from all fallacy. It can't be an ignorant fallacy if I assign it to the supernatural and if I have thought about it and believe it.

He actually lives at magnetic north pole, as he is also the god of magnetism. This is why the pole wanders. You don't think compass needles point north on their own do you? Ha, as if, that would need magic. Science is silly to talk about electromagnetic induction, phase angles, sine wave oscillations, electrons, commutation devices, left/right hand rules etc.Though no doubt containing snippets of observable truth, ultimately it's simply Santa and his ubiquitous elves (that haven't been scientifically observed yet because they are supernatural). Next time you marvel at the electric motor, realise that ultimately it is simply being turned by Santa and his supernatural elves.

The same way that light is easily explainable. It is even mentioned in the book of scientific facts (bible). The god responsible for light, speaks it into existence. Every time you flick a switch, a supernatural god is there commanding light to exist, obviously. Though it seems he doesn't always show if you buy a cheap torch off eBay, for example. He must be a bit fussy. Ever wonder about the double slit experiment, wave/ particle duality? Simply god yodelling. Science doesn't realise this yet, supernatural...

Principia, general relativity...all nonsense. Simply another supernatural god commanding his elves/angels to apply a force to objects. There is enough of them to affect every particle of matter that exists, they can adjust the trim angle of their wings any way they like. Ever held a peice of gravity? Didn't think so. Science doesn't need complicated equations to slingshot space capsules around the Moon. As it all has supernatural causes, they simply need to prey and if god is pleased he will make it happen, obviously.

Mathematics? Nonsense, it can be no coincidence 1 object+another object = 2 objects. This is obvious proof of intelligent supernatural design, the god of maths. Genuine maths would involve praying to see if he will change it to 1 object+another object = 3 objects. Due to supernatural explanations, not at all unrealistic to expect this.

Lightening, thunder? No need at all for complicated theories about electrical charge discharge, ionisation of air/plasma etc. Snippets of truth perhaps, yet the Vikings had this one right, Thor and his hammer haven't been discovered yet, supernatural and all that.

The sun disappearing overnight? Copernicus and Galileo weren't completely wrong. They mistakenly ruled out Ra and his chariot because, being supernatural...

It appears existence of these gods (including Santa) is now irrefutable, undeniable and incontrovertible. As I have empirically shown with scientific precision, clarity and purity of logical reasoning and complete lack of unfounded assumption. The same way you have, only you assign it all to one original god and thus are far more vague.

At this stage, all arguments for god, are arguments from scientific ignorance. Including yours. No different to the myth of Santa, except that god is the ultimate logical fallacy, explainable only by a sea of further resulting fallacies. He is always placed in gaps in knowledge, as you have done. Unless the arguer is completely delusional, then all knowledge is simply ignored in favour of superstition (i.e. fundamentalists). The only place he seems to exist with certainty, is as a concept in people's minds. Apart from that, it does seem his hiding places are becoming fewer.

I wonder why it is so difficult to say, "I don't know". Honesty?

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
No, I don't know how you define the terms and words because from my vantage point God is very much substantiated with evidence. What this means is we differ in ours definitions.

Ain't that the truth.

Elves are physical beings

Not even close. Mine are supernatural, like Santa, like god. You seem to be quite prejudiced in your assumptions. You will need more than this.

God by definition is a being that transcends nature.

So are my elves. So is Santa. Therefore they exist. Please prove otherwise.

Well, perhaps you do believe in Santa

To the exact same extent I believe in your god, yes.

Well, no, one could "falsify" God by using reason by showing that He's logically incoherent or that His existence is improbable given the existence of the universe and the way it behaves. As for unicorns, one could falsify unicorns in the same way they could falsify Santa.

You could, that would be explaining an opinion and no more. Please falsify my supernatural unicorns and supernatural Santa. if you feel they are not supernatural, please prove it. Then apply same to your god.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo SumI still think you unfairly overlook Santa, as far as gods go. He has been proved, by your own standards. You get presents don't you? What more empirical proof do you need?

This is why I have a difficult time taking many atheists seriously. Typically, when I talk to atheists on the Internet, they are either intellectually dishonest, emotional, or they troll. I never see any good arguments for atheism or against theism on the Internet and this thread is no different. Your Santa Claus analogy is obviously flawed for reasons I've already mentioned. So why do you continue to bring it up? Are you incapable of learning? Or are you not man or woman enough to admit that you're wrong?

Santa Claus is defined as a physical being--a fat jolly old man--who lives at the North Pole with elves, creates presents, and delivers them to the good boys and girls of the world. What this means is if Santa Claus did in fact exist, then there would be tons of empirical evidence for his existence. But we don't see any empirical evidence for his existence.

On the other hand, God is defined as a being who transcends the natural world. Therefore, if God did exist, then there wouldn't be any empirical evidence for His existence. There would only be empirical evidence for His existence if He somehow condescended or diminished Himself.

What is your response to the aforementioned?

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Not even close. Mine are supernatural, like Santa, like god. You seem to be quite prejudiced in your assumptions. You will need more than this.

Then you're using a definition of Santa Claus that falls outside of the standard definition. What you mean by "Santa Claus" isn't what most people mean by Santa Claus, in other words. It just seems dishonest to me to create a thread comparing Santa Claus to God when your definition of Santa Claus is in constant flux and out of the ordinary. I presume that most people who read this thread thought you were talking about the idea of a fat old jolly man dressed in red who lived at the North Pole with elves, and who produced and delivered presents to all good boys and girls on Christmas Eve.

So are my elves. So is Santa.

So you believe in things called "elves" and "Santa;" and they're immaterial beings? What reason(s) do you have for believing in immaterial beings called "elves" and "Santa"?

You could, that would be explaining an opinion and no more. Please falsify my supernatural unicorns and supernatural Santa.

Two things.

First, define what you exactly mean when you say "unicorn" and "santa." Then tell me what reason you have for believing they exist.