Do you belive in Santa Claus?

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.

True, but you're again, missing my point. Why would I get into a discussion with you about how God could interact with the natural world when you're still stuck on thinking Santa Claus is the equivalent to God?

So far you have not shown there is any difference.

But I have though and very easily.

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

What do you mean by this though? You're just blindly asserting things. You need to start explaining things better. I don't think my logic disappears when I talk about God.

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!

First, what you're saying here doesn't make any sense. You're saying something is past infinite and it came from nothing, then you go on to say that this is my definition of God? That's a straw man. And how could something be both past infinite and come from nothing? Second, I never said God came from nothing. God wasn't created. He's a necessary being, which means He cannot fail to exist. He exists in all possible worlds. Moreover, He doesn't run into the same problems that the natural world would run into if it were past-infinite because God isn't a collection of states, changes, or processes. He's just one complete changeless will. So when God acts there isn't a firing of neurons or natural processes. God also doesn't think in the same way we do since He already knows everything.

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

No, I don't think we are though. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

It's just that none of them are any good, no better than the argument for Santa.

Talk about hot air.

Feel free to explain why the arguments I listed are bad.

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.

Yes, you keep on repeating this without providing any arguments.

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

No, not necessarily, but most scientists believe that, ultimately, the natural world did have a beginning.

www.youtube.com...

No.

I didn't know there was an accepted unified field theory. Do you mean research into the possibility?

So is this an exception to your definition of the supernatural or are you going to redefine supernatural again? Because you wrote that anything beyond our understanding is supernatural. Therefore, quantum mechanics and the unified field theory is supernatural. We do not completely understand quantum mechanics and we do not have a working unified field theory, but we presume one exists.

You could if you performed the experiment, but you haven't. At least that could make Santa falsifiable, unlike god.

Well, like I wrote before many times in this thread. If Santa existed, then we would see X, Y, and Z where X, Y, and Z would be evidence. For instance, if somebody were traveling around the world at 650 mps or whatever, then we would see lots and lots of evidence. If Santa existed, then we would probably have footage of him delivering presents. We would probably find a factory or something like it in the north pole. We would see him flying around on Christmas Eve. But we don't. Therefore, Santa, most likely, doesn't exist. This means that Santa is indeed falsifiable. Not to mention, there's the experiment that I outlined which could also show that Santa most likely doesn't exist.

As for God, one could falsify God if they could show that the definition of God is logically incoherent or that if God existed, then we would see X, but since we do not observe X, then He most likely doesn't exist.

Finally, you still do not seem to understand what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hom is if one said you're stupid; therefore, your argument is false. I'm not doing that. I'm just saying you're stupid. I also think your "arguments" are false too, but for reasons not having to do with you being stupid (I reiterated some of these reasons in this very post). Not only that, but I'm not so sure what you're writing are even arguments. They seem more like emotional appeals, sarcasm, and baseless claims.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

True, but you're again, missing my point. Why would I get into a discussion with you about how God could interact with the natural world when you're still stuck on thinking Santa Claus is the equivalent to God?

Show me the money (sky fairy).

But I have though and very easily.

I am beginning to understand how the errancy in your logic comes about. Which is why I put up with debate over imaginary beings. More to understand the psychology of unfounded beliefs, whether the affected has suffered possible religious cult (such as christianity) indoctrination etc. Fascinating, from the pov of cultural anthropology.

What do you mean by this though? You're just blindly asserting things. You need to start explaining things better. I don't think my logic disappears when I talk about God.

Neither do I so far. For something to disappear, it would first need to have been apparent. Though it does for many others, who offer a study in coping with cognitive dissonance.

First, what you're saying here doesn't make any sense. You're saying something is past infinite and it came from nothing, then you go on to say that this is my definition of God? That's a straw man. And how could something be both past infinite and come from nothing?

It certainly doesn't make sense. Though we are discussing god and I was using your terms such as "past infinite" .Bound to happen.

Second, I never said God came from nothing. God wasn't created. He's a necessary being, which means He cannot fail to exist. He exists in all possible worlds. Moreover, He doesn't run into the same problems that the natural world would run into if it were past-infinite because God isn't a collection of states, changes, or processes. He's just one complete changeless will. So when God acts there isn't a firing of neurons or natural processes. God also doesn't think in the same way we do since He already knows everything.

Exactly like Santa! Remarkable similarities.

Yet I get presents, you haven't moved a mountain yet (have you?). This puts the odds in Santa's favor.

No, I don't think we are though. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Thanks. So I am ignorant and you are a recognized god expert? That argument is a bit deep. Never heard that one before.

Feel free to explain why the arguments I listed are bad.

Feel free to show me the sky fairy. Arguments don't prove god any more than Santa. For example, I have given you in depth explanations for how Santa exists and how he accomplishes his work, yet you still don't believe.

Yes, you keep on repeating this without providing any arguments.

...that you are prepared to accept...

No, not necessarily, but most scientists believe that, ultimately, the natural world did have a beginning.

From what I see, most scientists don't claim god did it either. Apart from those that offer the study in cognitive dissonance, as mentioned above.The ones I hear usually say they don't really know what preceded the big bang or indeed if anything did. Some are working on it though, science itself is a work in progress that is always open to being refined or disproven, unlike god or Santa. Our observable universe appears to have had a beginning, that doesn't mean nothing existed before then.

So is this an exception to your definition of the supernatural or are you going to redefine supernatural again?

Complete command over nature, able to accomplish anything he likes. Santa. As I have explained, but you seem to have a mental block.

Well, like I wrote before many times in this thread. If Santa existed, then we would.....

zzz...zzz...zzz. I am still waiting for you to move a mountain, with faith, mustard seed and all that. Are you afraid it won't work? God lies? Or perhaps...wait for it... is.....imaginary? Show me the sky fairy. Show me Marshall Applewhite's father.

As for God, one could falsify God if they could show that the definition of God is logically incoherent

Logically, you cant prove a negative like god's/reptilian alien's/Santa's/fairies/etc non existence. Despite your wishful thinking. This is god's fortress.

Finally, you still do not seem to understand what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hom is if one said you're stupid; therefore, your argument is false. I'm not doing that. I'm just saying you're stupid. I also think your "arguments" are false too

Once again.....

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I am beginning to understand how the errancy in your logic comes about. Which is why I put up with debate over imaginary beings.

There's no flaw in my reasoning in this thread, but go ahead. Explain why you think so.

It certainly doesn't make sense.

Yes, it certainly doesn't make sense to attribute stances to me that I don't hold.

Exactly like Santa! Remarkable similarities.

So now your definition of Santa includes necessary being?

Thanks. So I am ignorant and you are a recognized god expert?

No, I'm just obviously more rational than you are (at least when it comes to this), as evidenced by your inability to address my points. And since you are unable to address my points, you resort to sarcasm, condescension, and red herrings. There's a bit of condescension coming from my end as well, but it's completely justified in light of what has occurred in this thread.

Feel free to show me the sky fairy.

Define it for me. I may not even believe in sky fairies, so why would the onus be on my shoulders to show you that they exist.

Arguments don't prove god any more than Santa.

Oh, now we're back to God.

No, arguments are inferences based on premises. And there are plenty of arguments for God existence. There's the ontological argument. The kalam cosmological argument. The teleological argument. The cosmological argument from contingency. The moral argument. I believe that all of these arguments are valid and their premises more likely true than their negations. And you're free to explain what is wrong with them. Go ahead. You're also free to give an argument for the existence of Santa Claus. I'd also be interested in that.

For example, I have given you in depth explanations for how Santa exists and how he accomplishes his work

Well, you keep changing the definition of Santa. I don't even know what you mean by Santa at this point. For starters, why don't you define Santa and then stick with the definition, so we'll be able to discuss it in a meaningful manner. It just seems to me that whenever I provide good reasons for disbelieving in a particular definition of Santa, you redefine Santa to mean something else. Followed by, "See, this is like God! *derp*" What your doing isn't funny, original, nor are you making any point. You're just being difficult. What is the point? You're certainly not showing me anything new.

...that you are prepared to accept...

OK, well, when you find some arguments against God's existence, then post them. I'd be interested.

From what I see, most scientists don't claim god did it either.

I don't see how that's relevant since we're talking about the beginning of the universe. The consensus in scientific literature is that the universe had a beginning. Whether or not scientists are able to completely understand the implications of this is trivial and uninteresting.

Our observable universe appears to have had a beginning, that doesn't mean nothing existed before then.

Of course. In fact, God existed prior to the beginning of the natural world.

I am still waiting for you to move a mountain, with faith, mustard seed and all that. Are you afraid it won't work?

1. If Sleepwalk7 can't move a mountain, then God doesn't exist
2. Sleepwalk7 can't move a mountain
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist

Hmmm, nope, premise one appears false. I don't see how me not being able to move a mountain has anything to do with God's existence.

Logically, you cant prove a negative like god's/reptilian alien's/Santa's/fairies/etc non existence.

Actually, you can prove a negative. I've been trying to tell you that for the past few days, but you're too stupid or prideful to understand. Here's an academic source that explains how one can sometimes prove a negative.

departments.bloomu.edu...

Wow. I was just checking out Cog's posts and ironically he believes he saw something called a "Yowie."

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Not sure about Bigfoot, though I have seen what could be described as a Yowie.

Not such a fleeting glimpse either, I still remember at one stage looking into it's eyes, the expression on its face. Thinking something along the lines of...this is bs there must be a logical explanation...Once I started to get over the disbelief (to some extent) I actually tried to flush it out more into the open and get it on film, I think more to reassure myself I wasn't completely losing it, than anything else.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now I'm really starting to wonder if he actually does believe in Santa Claus, sky fairies, unicorns, and elves. It's all starting to make sense...

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7

There's no flaw in my reasoning in this thread, but go ahead. Explain why you think so.

Let's see...you personally claim to know not only the underlying cause of existence, but what existed previously (god), not believe, but to actually know personally....something to do with "past infinite" and "being from non being" and the like seem to be your points. Yep that's sound so far.

At this stage, due to not backing up claims with anything other than even emptier claims, it seems obvious you are massively exaggerating your feigned knowledge to promote a simple belief. Please explain clearly why you think god is real and Santa isn't. So far you are not convincing.

So now your definition of Santa includes necessary being?

Always did.

No, I'm just obviously more rational than you are (at least when it comes to this), as evidenced by your inability to address my points. And since you are unable to address my points, you resort to sarcasm, condescension, and red herrings. There's a bit of condescension coming from my end as well, but it's completely justified in light of what has occurred in this thread.

Yes, your opinion is a common symptom and a source of conflict even between religious cults themselves and their attempts to dismiss opposing views. Doesn't believe in my god = must be irrational, yet with no proof their god even exists outside of their mind, any more than Santa. I know I don't have the truth of existence (can't believe I'm even saying that :lol and so far your version amounts to a request to not mention Santa and insistence that god exists because it makes logical sense to you personaly. I have no doubt that you find your own argument convincing.

If you were to explain exactly how god created the universe, that would be less vague and far more impressive than basically "he just did". Then instead of preaching on forums, you could submit a paper proving his existence. Shouldn't really be that difficult with your knowledge. I wonder why you haven't?

Define it for me. I may not even believe in sky fairies, so why would the onus be on my shoulders to show you that they exist.

Creators of universes that have no known existence outside of people's minds.

No, arguments are inferences based on premises. And there are plenty of arguments for God existence.

..and Santa. Having an argument about something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Good or bad arguments aren't necessarily proof in themselves, it is simply a subjective view as to which side of an argument you prefer. Unless you expect others to believe in god, than an argument is all you will have. Heaven's gate members thought their leader's argument was good (he claimed a god too). I doubt it could be disproved any more than yours. Though they are more persuasive when they are backed with observable and testable experiments, for example, not based solely on personal beliefs in imaginary beings that can only be reasonably shown to exist, in any measurable way, in your own mind.

reply to post by Sleepwalk7

Well, you keep changing the definition of Santa. I don't even know what you mean by Santa at this point.

Then you obviously don't want to know, or skipped those parts...mental block.

OK, well, when you find some arguments against God's existence, then post them. I'd be interested.

Where is he? Outside of (the delusional concept) in your imagination. That is the only place we can be confident such a thing exists. We could use MRI machines to establish it definately exists as a concept in your thought processes. Where else? In which way can he be shown to exist, anything that would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

I don't see how that's relevant since we're talking about the beginning of the universe. The consensus in scientific literature is that the universe had a beginning. Whether or not scientists are able to completely understand the implications of this is trivial and uninteresting.

A universe that you claim an imaginary god created...... in which you used scientific opinion to help justify......not relevant? I think what you mean is inconvenient.

Of course. In fact, God existed prior to the beginning of the natural world.

It should be alarming just how easily that claim rolls off the tongue.

Hmmm, nope, premise one appears false. I don't see how me not being able to move a mountain has anything to do with God's existence.

At least that allows the possibility that you don't believe in the bible. That's a good thing.

Actually, you can prove a negative. I've been trying to tell you that for the past few days, but you're too stupid or prideful to understand. Here's an academic source that explains how one can sometimes prove a negative.

So this christian thinks unicorns are proven non existent, because they don't appear in the fossil record, yet believes in god. Sorry stopped reading at this point. If you think you can prove the non existence of Santa or unicorns, go for it. I think you will fail, the same way you will fail to prove or disprove god by talk alone. That is god and unicorns in a nutshell.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Obviously. I thought it was sincere and responded in kind. How pathetic.

There is no real Santa Clauss and he is more a fantasy tradition to brighten the gloom of winter and keep the kids looking forward to something to have them mind their parents.

Same sort of thing exists with god, it is all about feel good games of the mind.

Originally posted by Sleepwalk7
Wow. I was just checking out Cog's posts and ironically he believes he saw something called a "Yowie."

Now I'm really starting to wonder if he actually does believe in Santa Claus, sky fairies, unicorns, and elves. It's all starting to make sense...

edit on 27-7-2012 by Sleepwalk7 because: (no reason given)

Perhaps if you read more of my input into the cryptozoology section, you would get a better idea of my genuine opinion on this and other similar claimed incidents. Instead of making it appear something, which in your lust for the ad hom, might be (and certainly is) misleading. Of why I believe I and many other people have encountered such things. It might help you understand your own delusion.

Though it doesn't bother me that much in itself as far as the other thread goes, it is an obvious and irelevant attempt to belittle in a way that has little to do with the topic under discussion. It appears honest debate is not your thing, your points not as important. Religion is a wonderful thing eh? Now I am sure you don't even believe it. It appears that knowing the secrets of the cosmos doesn't require basic manners. It is possible to begin to understand the human experience with its illusions and even religious delusions. if you wish.