It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you belive in Santa Claus?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

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.

I am far from an atheist.


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?

About Santa? Or about god? I think the point of the analogy is obvious. Why can't you admit the truth, that no matter how much you believe, you don't really know?


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.

If he exists in this universe or is able to affect it, this means he can be detected in some way (this has not happened so far, doesn't mean it never will) If he doesn't exist in this universe and can have no affect on it, starting to sound remarkably like something that doesn't exist at all.....


edit on 23-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

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.

Flies all around the world visiting approximately 92 million Christian households in 31 hours, therefore travelling at about 650 mps allowing just over 1 millisecond per visit (according to calculations), with deer and a sleigh that defy gravity, knows telepathically if you've been naughty or nice, has an invisible workshop at the north pole, leaves no trace of existence.....yet to you he is not supernatural? This is obvious proof that he is every bit as supernatural as god.

If you can show me the scientific paper that has observed Santa directly and concluded he is a normal physical being, your opinion would be more convincing. Then I will show you the paper that describes god through direct observation, oh wait a minute.....



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"?


Not sure I can take that seriously, for very obvious reasons. See below regarding supernatural beings ie. Santa, elves, god. All the same thing basically.


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.


A little pony with a horn on its nose and a fat man in strange garb. Both supernatural beings with complete control over nature and who can therefore exist without being detected if they wish (it seems they generally do wish).

Unicorns are said by many to be the embodiment of purity (particularly white ones). Purity exists, at least as an ideal and a possibility, even though it might be only truly found in supernatural beings (such as unicorns). There are world wide stories of unicorns throughout history. I know of people who would consider any vision of a unicorn (such as appearing in a dream or altered state of consciousness) to be a blessing, with highly spiritual implications.This is indirect proof they exist.

The season to be jolly, Santa statues (Jesus?), impersonators, mistletoe, presents.There is no doubt Santa has an exciting and profound effect on many. After all, legends (like god) must have a basis in truth right? It can be explained no other way. Indirect proof of his existence.

It is also a fact that, like god, neither being can be proven not to exist.

The first link below gives one account of unicorns, also very applicable to god. Scroll down and it compares god/Jesus and Santa.

crossexaminedblog.com...

www.theequinest.com...

www.theequinest.com...



edit on 23-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

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?


Nice attempt at trolling but poor attempt at discrediting god. The answer is no, God by definition self substantiates Santa does not claim this. Santa supposedly
serves a christian mission as well in that his function has become one in heralding the seasonal celebration of Christ birth. Yes I am aware of the pagan origins of Christmas but in this instance you bring up Santa yet you negate to mention his mission.

You may say well there is no Christ and to that I would so ok lets suppose no Christ then we still have the idea of God self substantiating which you say no God but sense God is the only thing identified with self substantiation and you want a materialist view then you could go pantheistic and say that science holds the universe was self substantiated through this Big Bang
so we can follow that logic to assume that the universe is all and self substantiating. So using your logic whether christian or not God exist just perhaps as some amorphous pantheist universe.
either way no legitimate reason to deny God exist but perhaps some contention on which form he exist as.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
If he doesn't exist in this universe and can have no affect on it, starting to sound remarkably like something that doesn't exist at all.....


If you assume naturalism is true. I have no reason to assume naturalism is true though. Moreover, not being of the natural world does not equal cannot affect the natural world.



Flies all around the world visiting approximately 92 million Christian households in 31 hours, therefore travelling at about 650 mps allowing just over 1 millisecond per visit (according to calculations)


I didn't think this conversation could get any stupider, but here you've proven me wrong. First, your patronizing nonsense is starting to get annoying. The Santa Claus analogy is a bad one for reasons I've already explained. Drop it. There's no reason to continue. I don't know if you're being serious right now or not, but you need to learn when to quit.

But if one were to take your nonsense seriously, Santa Claus would need to travel much faster than 650 mph in order to deliver presents to the world. The number of Christian homes in the world is much higher than 92 million. Santa Claus would leave a wake of destruction, noise, and visuals (and thus evidence) behind him if he were traveling at these speeds inside and near homes.


yet to you he is not supernatural?


That depends on what you mean by supernatural. What I mean by supernatural is that which isn't of the natural world or that which transcends the natural world. So, no, I do not think the Santa Claus character is supernatural in this sense. After all, he does possess a physical body and a spatial and temporal location.


If you can show me the scientific paper that has observed Santa directly and concluded he is a normal physical being


I'm going by the standard description or definition of Santa Claus. If you want to change that standard description or definition, then by all means go ahead. But know that you're not actually talking about Santa Claus. You're just making up stuff as you go along and labeling it Santa Claus.


Not sure I can take that seriously, for very obvious reasons. See below regarding supernatural beings ie. Santa, elves, god. All the same thing basically.


No, they're not "all the same thing basically." That's the point I've been making. If you're going to throw around ideas like unicorns and elves, then you're going to have to clearly define them.


A little pony with a horn on its nose and a fat man in strange garb.


Well, then, if little ponies with horns on their noses and fat men with strange garbs who flew around the world delivering presents existed, then wouldn't there be a good amount of empirical evidence for their existence?


Both supernatural beings with complete control over nature and who can therefore exist without being detected


I've never heard anyone define unicorns and Santa Claus in this way. Are you sure you're talking about unicorns and Santa Claus? Or are you just making things up and labeling them unicorns and Santa Claus? Going back to Santa Claus, even if he were undetectable, you could still find out if he existed by monitoring the Christmas tree. You set up a camera by the Christmas tree and keep it on for the entire month of December. If, mysteriously, presents just appeared under the tree without the help of a parent, then I'd say that's good evidence for the existence of an undetectable (at least visually) force or entity who delivers presents. But we don't observe this kind of phenomena.


Unicorns are said by many to be the embodiment of purity (particularly white ones).


That's fine inside the idea or description itself, but you first need to provide rational reasons for believing in unicorns in the first place. Why do you believe in unicorns and Santa Claus?


It is also a fact that, like god, neither being can be proven not to exist.


Actually, as I've pointed out numerous times before, there are plenty of ways to show that beings like Santa Claus do not exist or probably do not exist. But you seem incapable of learning or admitting that you're wrong, so we're unnecessarily going around in circles.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Sleepwalk7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
If you assume naturalism is true. I have no reason to assume naturalism is true though. Moreover, not being of the natural world does not equal cannot affect the natural world.

So many of the processes that used to be the domain of the god of superstition have, so far, been explained without him (heliocentricity, planetary accretion, evolution, germ theory etc). In all of these many instances the god claims have been either false, or an unnecessary complication at best. He has been found absent every time so far. He is constantly being found more and more unnecessary. Even then there is no reason to make any definite claims for what we don't know. Socrates claimed what set him apart from other men was not in what he knew, but in realizing what he didn't. You are claiming direct knowledge of how existence itself came to be. All the while claiming something that didn't need to be brought into existence,yet still existed, caused existence.
It is difficult to accept this, as you have not backed it up with anything other than personal assumption.

If you can explain (and back up your explanation with more than assumption) how someone who doesn't exist in this Universe and never enters it, can affect it, I'm all ears. Or how you know for sure there is anything beyond the Universe. Or how you know with direct certainty that existence (in some form, not necessarily how it appears now) had a defined beginning, let alone was "created" by any conscious, cognizant, self aware being that himself didn't need to be created.


I didn't think this conversation could get any stupider, but here you've proven me wrong. First, your patronizing nonsense is starting to get annoying. The Santa Claus analogy is a bad one for reasons I've already explained. Drop it. There's no reason to continue. I don't know if you're being serious right now or not, but you need to learn when to quit.


Without realizing it, you have just described the general argument for god. Though usually people won't be that blunt in pointing it out (they are sometimes), it's veering towards the ad hom (non) argument and sometimes causes offence. Not that you have offended here, I don't mind in the slightest.


But if one were to take your nonsense seriously, Santa Claus would need to travel much faster than 650 mph in order to deliver presents to the world. The number of Christian homes in the world is much higher than 92 million. Santa Claus would leave a wake of destruction, noise, and visuals (and thus evidence) behind him if he were traveling at these speeds inside and near homes.


No, 650 mps = miles per second, but we are now quibbling over details. He exists, he is supernatural. Explains everything really.


That depends on what you mean by supernatural. What I mean by supernatural is that which isn't of the natural world or that which transcends the natural world. So, no, I do not think the Santa Claus character is supernatural in this sense. After all, he does possess a physical body and a spatial and temporal location.

Then you do believe Santa could possibly exist in some way? Perhaps physically? Sounds a bit over the top, you might need to substantiate that.

Or are you simply asserting your asantaist opinion must be true. That wouldn't disprove Santa, it would prove only that you are an asantaist. A non believer. The same way that opinions don't, of themselves, disprove god now do they?.


edit on 24-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Sleepwalk7
 


You're just making up stuff as you go along and labeling it Santa Claus.

Not like thats ever been done with god or anything.



No, they're not "all the same thing basically." That's the point I've been making. If you're going to throw around ideas like unicorns and elves, then you're going to have to clearly define them.

I did. Supernatural beings. Beyond your current understanding. Though I must say, I understand it completely, as I have outlined. Because you don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.


Well, then, if little ponies with horns on their noses and fat men with strange garbs who flew around the world delivering presents existed, then wouldn't there be a good amount of empirical evidence for their existence?

There is, as I have outlined. In exactly the same way there is for god.


You set up a camera by the Christmas tree and keep it on for the entire month of December. If, mysteriously, presents just appeared under the tree without the help of a parent, then I'd say that's good evidence for the existence of an undetectable (at least visually) force or entity who delivers presents. But we don't observe this kind of phenomena.

After you perform this controlled experiment on every Christmas tree on earth, basically simultaneously, let me know. Until then, your guessing. I don't even have to resort to the supernatural yet, for this one.....


That's fine inside the idea or description itself, but you first need to provide rational reasons for believing in unicorns in the first place. Why do you believe in unicorns and Santa Claus?

Rational reasons for believing in unicorns, Santa, god? Got me stumped there.

The irrational ones usually go like this...take any known phenomena you like, draw in inference to a mythical being, claim the two are connected.


Actually, as I've pointed out numerous times before, there are plenty of ways to show that beings like Santa Claus do not exist or probably do not exist. But you seem incapable of learning or admitting that you're wrong, so we're unnecessarily going around in circles.

Same for god, yet you not only believe but claim it as a truth. Do you not?


edit on 24-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
The universe exists.
Therefore it was created.
Therefore god created it.
Therefore god exists.

Q. How do you know it was "created"?
A. Because it exists.
Q. But how do you know god exists?
A. Because he created it.
Q. How do you know it was created?
A. Because it exists.
Q. But how do you kn....................

and on............and on.............and on.

Poor old Santa.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Zips are known to exist.
Therefore they were created.
Therefore a zoodle created them.
Therefore zoodles exist.

Q. Wait on, at present, no one knows how zips came to be.
A. They were "created".
Q But why a zoodle, no one has ever seen a zoodle?
A They obviously exist, because they created zips.
Q How do you know zips were created?
A Because they exist.
Q How do you know zoodles exist?
A Because they created zips.............


and on.............and on.............and on...............


Poor old Santa.



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Zips are known to exist.
Therefore they were created.
Therefore a zoodle created them.
Therefore zoodles exist.

Q. Wait on, at present, no one knows how zips came to be.
A. They were "created".
Q But why a zoodle, no one has ever seen a zoodle?
A They obviously exist, because they created zips.
Q How do you know zips were created?
A Because they exist.
Q How do you know zoodles exist?
A Because they created zips.............


and on.............and on.............and on...............


Poor old Santa.



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because


How about gravitons?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta


How about gravitons?


How about hypothetical gravitons? No one really knows what gravity is.Thus leading to various theories (attempts to explain). Which, unlike "god did it because I say so" need a certain level of demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable and genuine substantiating.

Apples always fall from trees due to a force we don't truly understand.
Our observations about this are predictable.
We can use this testable, repeatable and predictable observation to help explain the universe.
To help understand planetary motion.
To slingshot space capsules around the moon.
In itself, we don't know exactly what it is.
This neither proves nor disproves god.




We have never observed an apple leaving the tree and escaping into outer space, yet.
Yeh, that can only be because an invisible supernatural being that cannot be directly observed in any way, wills it so..... obviously. One day he might make apples disappear into space, if it pleases him to do so. This would help prove this supernatural beings existence. We have every reason to think that this could happen, quite definitely, no assumptions needed there.............



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by NihilistSanta


How about gravitons?


How about them? No one really knows what gravity is.

Apples always fall from trees due to a force we don't truly understand.
Our observations about this are predictable.
We can use this testable, repeatable and predictable observation to help explain the universe.
To help understand planetary motion.
To slingshot space capsules around the moon.
In itself, we don't know exactly what it is.




We have never observed an apple leaving the tree and escaping into outer space, yet.
Yeh, that can only be because an invisible supernatural being that cannot be directly observed in any way, wills it so..... obviously. One day he might make apples disappear into space, if it pleases him to do so. We have every reason to think that, quite definitely, no assumptions needed there.............



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because


So you infer their existence from observations ok I can dig that. Kind of like how life or existence is the observable effect and God would be the unknown but inferred cause? Well your previous reasoning about Zips etc excluded one thing. You say zips exist but not how. You also don't address the fact that before zips there was nothing and yet Zips self substantiated themselves from nothing.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta

So you infer their existence from observations ok I can dig that.


No, I don't personally. In certain areas of science they are postulated. A hypothetical possibility. Not a fact. They have never been discovered AFAIK.


Kind of like how life or existence is the observable effect and God would be the unknown but inferred cause?


There is a difference between seeing a possible inference and drawing a definite conclusion for the entirety of existence that can't be substantiated or falsified. One is a complete assumption.

God is also a possibility, a hypothesis. Why do you claim it as a fact? Why isn't Santa a hypothesis for Christmas to the same extent? No one has disproved it.


Well your previous reasoning about Zips etc excluded one thing. You say zips exist but not how. You also don't address the fact that before zips there was nothing and yet Zips self substantiated themselves from nothing.


Seems quite obvious why. I don't know. I have doubts anyone does, because no one has sufficiently explained it. Belief is not necessarily fact (not necessarily wrong either). I also don't know what might, or might not have existed previous to zips. Because of this, if I don't assume or fall into simple belief, it is the only logical and honest answer. At this stage.



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Also you mention observation but observation is only as good as the tool which you observe or measure with. Kind of how galaxies did not exist before the invention of telescopes. Of course they existed but no one had yet created a tool to observe them. Makes me think of a certain cat in a box. You cant discount the existence of God because you do not possess a tool to measure/observe it/him. Your entire argument here is a reductionist circular logic. You know the universe exist. You know that at some point it did not exist (your own regurgitated scientific observations can confirm this entropy etc). The tool to observe is yourself. Perhaps you need recalibrating. What about the prime mover/first cause argument? You can only reduce to the prime mover but because you lack the tool to observe this you deny its existence. Something tells me that given different temporal circumstances you would be a flat earth supporter. Do not take this as a personal attack I am just following your logic that all that exist is what we can presently observe with our technology.

edit on 25-7-2012 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta

Also you mention observation but observation is only as good as the tool which you observe or measure with. Kind of how galaxies did not exist before the invention of telescopes. Of course they existed but no one had yet created a tool to observe them. Makes me think of a certain cat in a box. You cant discount the existence of God because you do not possess a tool to measure/observe it/him.


Fully agreed. For the same reasons you can't disprove Santa.


Your entire argument here is a reductionist circular logic. You know the universe exist. You know that at some point it did not exist (your own regurgitated scientific observations can confirm this entropy etc).

Quite untrue. I don't know that at some point the universe did not exist. I might need more than your word on that. I can understand it didn't exist in present observable form, which seems to have had a beginning, certainly. Beyond that, who knows? I only know from this that you are not averse to making claims (which you fail to substantiate).


The tool to observe is yourself. Perhaps you need recalibrating.


Thanks for the advice.



What about the prime mover/first cause argument? You can only reduce to the prime mover but because you lack the tool to observe this you deny its existence.


What about it? From this I must agree that god exists? Yeah, sure.....

You can reduce whatever you like to whatever else you like. I doubt I'm the only one who can't observe whatever you are attempting to say.

I see no reason to assume god. Like Santa, I can neither prove nor disprove your claims of his existence. No one has managed that yet. Beyond opinion that is.


Something tells me that given different temporal circumstances you would be a flat earth supporter. Do not take this as a personal attack I am just following your logic that all that exist is what we can presently observe with our technology.


The same "something" that told you about god?

I'll give plenty of latitude before I'll see it as a personal attack. Though I do see it as irrelevant.

Perhaps you have misunderstood my logic. If you replace that notion with "honesty" you might not lose much.



edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by anoncoholic

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?


No but I do recognize a bait thread when I see it

troll fail

In other words, you can't rationalize your simultaneous disbelief in Santa Claus and belief in the Christian God? Believe it or not, I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely interested in how people logically rule out the existence of specific deities while simultaneously being convinced of the existence of other deities. Don't you think this conundrum is at least a little bit interesting?
edit on 14-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


You are trolling. Based on the answers you have already supplied...You already have an opinion, and are trying to bait Christians into a senseless debate which will eventually turn into an argument. All the while, you are hoping to turn them away from their Christianity or at least make them doubt their faith.

By stating that you are not trolling as referenced in the quote, not only are you a troll, but a liar as well.

A note to Christians: I don't understand why so many of you bother with these kinds of threads. Are you hoping to plant seeds to passers by? This website is "rocky ground" in so many ways and on so many levels. Daniel was pushed into the lion's den, he did not ask to go in.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dirkpotters
 


I just dropped by to prove I exist


Decided to feed the troll while I was at it.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta

I just dropped by to prove I exist


If you are proven real, perhaps you created the universe? That fact (being proven real) would certainly give you one up on god. Wasn't me or anyone else I can think of, so if not you, that obviously rules out all other possibility, past present or future. So by the purity of faith driven logic..... it was god for sure. Thanks, you have won me, going to church from now on.


Decided to feed the troll while I was at it.


That doesn't seem very god or christ like. You have offended my Santa derived sensibilities and I am deeply hurt. I will simply turn the other rosy red cheek and make allowances for another Asantaist/ Heathen. My faith will get me through. No need of sacrificing little turtle doves just yet though, instead I will pray for you.

Santa forgive them (and don't punish them/ withhold presents), they are of little faith and know not what they do.





edit on 25-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
So many of the processes that used to be the domain of the god of superstition have, so far, been explained without him (heliocentricity, planetary accretion, evolution, germ theory etc). He is constantly being found more and more unnecessary.


If God is unnecessary for explaining the origin of the natural world, then does that mean you believe nonbeing can produce being or that the natural world extends infinitely into the past?


All the while claiming something that didn't need to be brought into existence,yet still existed, caused existence.
It is difficult to accept this, as you have not backed it up with anything other than personal assumption.


Yes, I "assume" zero potentiality or nonbeing cannot produce being and that the past couldn't be past-infinite because an actually infinite number of events would need to occur before the present could be reached.


how someone who doesn't exist in this Universe and never enters it, can affect it, I'm all ears.


We could go into this, but I don't see why we should at this point when you're still talking about Santa Claus. Once we get past Santa Claus not being an accurate analogy for God and the idea that zero potentiality cannot produce anything, then perhaps we'll be able to move on to more complicated things.


Or how you know for sure there is anything beyond the Universe.


You're going to have to define "know for sure." I'm guessing you're using it in the sense of "knowing that I am correct." No, I don't "know" that I'm correct that God exists, but then again, I don't "know" that I'm correct to think that you or the external world is real.

I do think there are good arguments for God's existence though and that the existence of the universe is more probable and makes more sense under theism than atheism.


Or how you know with direct certainty that existence (in some form, not necessarily how it appears now) had a defined beginning


Contemporary cosmology.


let alone was "created" by any conscious, cognizant, self aware being that himself didn't need to be created.


Because the alternates, for instance, nonbeing producing being seem logically incoherent.


Without realizing it, you have just described the general argument for god.


That sounds cute and everything, but it has no basis in reality.


it's veering towards the ad hom (non) argument and sometimes causes offence. Not that you have offended here, I don't mind in the slightest.


No, an ad hom would be me attacking your character and then concluding that your arguments must be wrong because of the character flaws that I pointed out. I never did that though. However, you are indeed childish to be pushing this Santa Claus analogy when I've already thoroughly explained to you why it doesn't work on several occasions. So I don't know if you're trolling, unable to learn, or what. I don't get it.


No, 650 mps = miles per second, but we are now quibbling over details.


Well, that's even worse then. A Santa Claus traveling at 650 mps around the world to deliver presents would leave a ton of evidence.


Then you do believe Santa could possibly exist in some way?


Again, you're being misleading because you keep changing the definition of Santa Claus every post. Could "Santa Claus" exist in "some" way? Of course. He could exist as a regular cat who acts just like any other cat because he's indeed a normal cat. I could call this cat Santa Claus. So, to answer your question, yes, "Santa Claus" could exist in "some way."

But if you're talking about Santa Claus as he's normally defined, I doubt that he exists for reasons I've already mentioned.


Perhaps physically?


Well, Santa Claus can be seen, heard (which means he can interact with air molecules), and he eats cookies. He has a physical shape. He seems physical to me. Or I could say that we have more reason that to believe that if Santa were real, then he'd be physical than the other way around.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
I did. Supernatural beings.


So the unicorns and elves are immaterial? I've never heard or read of this definition of elves and unicorns. I always thought unicorns looked like this:



And elves like this:



They look physical to me. In fact, who knows? Perhaps unicorns do exist. Maybe it's an undiscovered species.

Can you define what you think supernatural means?


Beyond your current understanding.


Does this mean things like quantum mechanics and the general unified field theory are supernatural?


There is


There's empirical evidence for elves and unicorns? Where?


After you perform this controlled experiment on every Christmas tree on earth, basically simultaneously, let
me know.


You're missing the point. The point is you could possibly falsify Santa Claus using the experiment I outlined.


Rational reasons for believing in unicorns, Santa


Then why are we talking about them again?

As for God, there's the Kalam cosmological argument. The teleological argument. The moral argument. The ontological argument. And the cosmological argument from contingency.


Same for god


You've given an argument against God? Where!? I'd like to see it.
edit on 25-7-2012 by Sleepwalk7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

We could go into this, but I don't see why we should at this point when you're still talking about Santa Claus.

It might be time to read the heading for this thread again. The topic of discussion is whether Santa is, or is not, any more mythical than god. So far you have not shown there is any difference. Simply asking that Santa be left out of debate is not much of an argument. You will need more than that.


Because the alternates, for instance, nonbeing producing being seem logically incoherent.

Yeah, except when it comes to god, then any notion of logic disappears and it works just fine.


Then we have something that you claim can't happen i.e.past infinite and came from nothing, yet not only did it happen but created everything else from nothing too! Are we discussing logic, or schizophrenia?


No, I don't "know" that I'm correct that God exists, but then again, I don't "know" that I'm correct to think that you or the external world is real.

Now we're getting somewhere. Except for the solipsism.


I do think there are good arguments for God's existence though and that the existence of the universe is more probable and makes more sense under theism than atheism.

I considered both positions for a very long time and found neither of them satisfactory. Though I do sympathize with atheists in some ways. Especially with notions of a Judeo/Christian type deity whose "holy word" sounds like it was obviously written down by a group of ignorant and primitive goat herders, with a sum of worldly knowledge between them taking in whatever superstitious myths they heard in a twenty mile radius from the cave they were born in. Few reasonable people could get very far into such books without becoming a devout atheist, unless they had been indoctrinated from a young age already. They have my sympathies.

I agree there are plenty of arguments for god. Possibly enough to inflate every hot air balloon on earth. It's just that none of them are any good, no better than the argument for Santa. They all require faith that god exists.

I also didn't say my faith in Santa was rational. It's every bit as irrational as your belief in the evil sky fairy. That was the whole point. I have told you Santa is the god of magnetism in his spare time. I have explained how he achieves this and all of his other thankless tasks. This is far more than you have done to promote your myth.


Contemporary cosmology.

So you think the big bang was the beginning of existence?

www.sciencedaily.com...


Does this mean things like quantum mechanics and the general unified field theory are supernatural?

No.

I didn't know there was an accepted unified field theory. Do you mean research into the possibility? I hypothesise Santa could be the unifying principle. One day science will realise that elves, who have the gift of ubiquity and can shrink themselves to subatomic size, are part of it. They are a fundamental part of matter that becomes excited cyclically once a year, during the silly season. I have just made elves as scientific as god.


You're missing the point. The point is you could possibly falsify Santa Claus using the experiment I outlined.


You could if you performed the experiment, but you haven't. At least that could make Santa falsifiable, unlike god. Sounding more like a scientific theory all the time, is Santa.

But why couldn't you also falsify god by trying to move Mt. Everest with faith? Only needs a little, mustard seeds aren't very big.

Or you could just realise there is no good reason to believe in superstition and find the whole thing irrelevant.


No, an ad hom would be me attacking your character and then concluding that your arguments must be wrong because of the character flaws that I pointed out. I never did that though. However, you are indeed childish to be pushing this Santa Claus analogy






edit on 26-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join