Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.

[dangerdan]

Ok, you're probably wondering what Santa has to do with Christianity? bear with me here....

The topic of Santa was brought up in the thread "Everyone should be agnostic?, and with it brought some interesting topics to do with belief systems, well worthy of a new thread.

Now why is this in a Christianity forum? I think it has some rich insights into Christian epistemology - why they believe in some things and not others. I was pondering putting this in the philosophy sub-forum, but I feel it’s more relating to pure Christian thought (though if moderators feel otherwise then that's ok).

So, let the debate begin! I do not intend the question to be demeaning or disrespectful, but merely a candid enquiry. So with no further ado - Do Christians believe in Santa? If not, why not.

[chrispalasz]

Me: So, how about you can answer this question:

Why do people believe in Santa?

potwalloper: For the same reason that Christians believe in God - because they have faith. The fact that the believers of one are children and the others are adults is immaterial - the key tenet to the belief is faith not evidence...

The same reasons? What are those reasons?

Are you trying to suggest by this that Santa does not exist?

I know that he exists:

1 Presents appear at Christmas - who brings them if not Santa?

2 My parents told me that he exists ergo he exists

3 There are many references to Santa in books so he must exist

4 Just because Santa chooses not to show himself to you does not mean he does not exist

5 Santa is benevolent - just because he does not give presents to those in the third world and allows people to starve at Christmas does not disprove his existence

6 To ensure he is able to deliver all of the presents in just one night there are really three Santas and these three Santas are both the same Santa and different Santas all at the same time

7 No I have never seen Santa - what a silly question - I do not need to see Santa I simply have faith in his existence

8 Please do not try to persuade me of his nonexistence by using scientific arguments - Santa is Santa and is beyond your understanding...

1. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
2. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
3. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
4. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
5. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
6. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
7. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ. - although this has the most substance for being close to true.
8. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.

I won't argue for others... but the primary reason that I once believed in Santa was because my parents and siblings told me he existed and I saw false evidence that he did exist.

The primary reason that I have faith in Jesus Christ is because He spoke to me, and He still does on a regular basis to this day. There is no other reason. Every reason apart from that is on the result side of the equation, not the causal side.

Clarification Equation(s):

God reveals Himself to me => I see evidence of Him everywhere
God reveals Himself to me => I now understand the logic for His existance
God reveals Himself to me => I can plainly see that He exists
God reveals Himself to me => I see that He is the Trinity
God reveals Himself to me => I understand my parents were right
God reveals Himself to me => I know Biblical references are accurate
God reveals Himself to me => I accept Jesus as my Savior
God reveals Himself to me => I repent for my sins and am justified and produce good works

This is actually all 1 equation that would look like this:

God reveals Himself to me => I see evidence of Him everywhere + I now understand the logic for His existance + I can plainly see that He exists + I see that He is the Trinity + I understand my parents were right + I know Biblical references are accurate + I accept Jesus as my Savior + I repent for my sins and am justified and produce good works

[bernee51]

1. This is not a reason I believe in Jesus Christ.
....

The primary reason that I have faith in Jesus Christ is because He spoke to me, and He still does on a regular basis to this day.

You have changed from stating 'berlief' to 'having faith'. Are they interchangeble in your relationship with the one you call the Christ

Clarification Equation(s):

God reveals Himself to me => I see evidence of Him everywhere => How does he show himself to you
God reveals Himself to me => I now understand the logic for His existance => How is his existence logical
God reveals Himself to me => I can plainly see that He exists => What do you see that makes it so
God reveals Himself to me => I see that He is the Trinity => See or believe from scripture
God reveals Himself to me => I understand my parents were right => only about this?
God reveals Himself to me => I know Biblical references are accurate => The bible is clearly inconsistent
God reveals Himself to me => I accept Jesus as my Savior => Fine - saviour from what
God reveals Himself to me => I repent for my sins and am justified and produce good works
=> Why is it necessary

[Gaunt]

Ok, I think this might have been missed the first time around, but I really would like an answer for it.

If subjective evidence is sufficient for proving the existance of the Christian God, why is it not sufficient for proving the existance of Santa? I guess I'm just not seeing the difference here. Subjective evidence is subjective evidence, no matter what you are trying to prove as far as I know.

As an aside when you said "The actual entity of God is not objective, though." doesn't that mean that God is in fact subjective? If God's existance is subjective, then what are you arguing about?

Not to demean your faith or anything, but one could just as easily say:
"Santa reveals himself to me => I now understand the significance of the nice/naughty list in day to day life" or whathaveyou. For that matter, you could substitute "God reveals himself to me" with "I believe in God," "I have faith in a Supreme Being," or "I've been tripping on acid" and it would have no impact what so ever on the right hand side of the equation.

[chrispalasz]

The yeild sign that I have used means that it's part of the equation. Your comments are not part of the equation, so I have separated them.

God reveals Himself to me => I see evidence of Him everywhere (How does he show himself to you: How doesn't He show Himself to me? This would be a much shorter answer.)

God reveals Himself to me => I now understand the logic for His existance (How is his existence logical: If God reveals Himself, then logically, He exists)

God reveals Himself to me => I can plainly see that He exists (What do you see that makes it so: I see Jesus Christ manifest in the events around me)

God reveals Himself to me => I see that He is the Trinity (See or believe from scripture: Both)

God reveals Himself to me => I understand my parents were right (only about this?: no)

God reveals Himself to me => I know Biblical references are accurate (The bible is clearly inconsistent: only because you say so)

God reveals Himself to me => I accept Jesus as my Savior (Fine - saviour from what: Savior from my sins and from the Evil One)

God reveals Himself to me => I repent for my sins and am justified and produce good works (Why is it necessary: Good works are not necessary. They are a result. Repentence and Justification are necessary for salvation becuse of mankind's sinful nature. Only God is Good)

Every Christian has found objective evidence that is undeniably Jesus Christ. It has been experienced in a personal relationship with Him. It's the same as if you were to say to me, "Can I try some of the cake you made? I hate that kind and I want to step on it and smear it and tell everyone that it's a terrible cake." Obviously I'm not going to give you any. God knows what people will do before they do it. Why would he reveal Himself to people that will only reject Him for it when they are already currently rejecting Him?

one could just as easily say

One is not saying that about Santa. But I am saying that about God.

[dangerdan]

Quote:

one could just as easily say

One is not saying that about Santa. But I am saying that about God.

Greenlight, I can’t help but feel you are missing the point of this thread.

We are saying the justification used to support the existence of God, can be used equally well to justify the existence of Santa. So if Christians honestly held these justification arguments to be weighty, they should really believe in Santa as well….oooor…throw out the arguments and have a good think why they really believe in God.

So hit us with your arguments why you don’t believe in Santa. Can we agree to cross off the “no adults do” argument?

[Gaunt]

Every Christian has found objective evidence that is undeniably Jesus Christ. It has been experienced in a personal relationship with Him.

So, every christian has found objective evidence through a subjective experience. If subjective evidence counts as evidence for the objective existence of God, why not for Santa too?

Why would he reveal Himself to people that will only reject Him for it when they are already currently rejecting Him?

Because he a) being omniscient, knows what it would take to convince an unbeliever of his existence, b) being omnipotent has the power to do so, and c) being omnibenevolent wants us to know him and to accept him into our lives so that we can avoid damnation.

Note A+B+C= common attributes associated with the Christian God.

[chrispalasz]

So, every christian has found objective evidence through a subjective experience. If subjective evidence counts as evidence for the objective existence of God, why not for Santa too?

I'm not sure you said it right. It's like this: Every Christian has found objective evidence that Jesus Christ is God resulting from a personal relationship with Him. I will not say a relationship with God is subjective evidence - due to implications which would mean that God is purely in a person's mind and could possibly be an illusion. This is not the case.

Because he a) being omniscient, knows what it would take to convince an unbeliever of his existence, b) being omnipotent has the power to do so, and c) being omnibenevolent wants us to know him and to accept him into our lives so that we can avoid damnation.

Exactly! You hit it on the nose! a) being omniscient, He knows that there is nothing that can convince some unbelievers of His existence. With this knowledge, no objective evidence is needed or given to them.; b) He does have the power, and His Master Plan is being carried out; c) Sort of. He wants His Children to know Him and to accept Him into their lives so that We can avoid damnation. I don't know who all His children are... but He does.

Greenlight, I can’t help but feel you are missing the point of this thread.

We are saying the justification used to support the existence of God, can be used equally well to justify the existence of Santa. So if Christians honestly held these justification arguments to be weighty, they should really believe in Santa as well….oooor…throw out the arguments and have a good think why they really believe in God.

So hit us with your arguments why you don’t believe in Santa. Can we agree to cross off the “no adults do” argument?

I'm not missing the point... I'm just no longer interested in this thread. The subject has been used and trashed.

I know what you are saying. I am saying that this is not true in the least. You are then asking me "why" - and I am saying that the reason is because of all of the counter arguments that have been posted by myself and others. Then you are asking me, "what counter arguments?" And my answer is: Why should I post repeats of them all? Because you don't want to click through the thread and find them? It's really not that hard. If you want, you can even just scan through the one's I've posted. The first and 2nd pages have some good ones too.

I do not agree to scratch the "no adults do" argument. It is valid in this case because Santa clause is a children's story. Now, if you want a rebuttle... go dig one up. It's already been said.

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

potwalloper: For the same reason that Christians believe in God - because they have faith. The fact that the believers of one are children and the others are adults is immaterial - the key tenet to the belief is faith not evidence...

The same reasons? What are those reasons?

Because during their crucial developmental years they were told that God exists and were never disabused of this. Schemas were then developed as a consequence and these schemas have been reinforced (or in some cases reinstated) in adult life to explain the world and to facilitate interaction with same.

The only difference between the two is that one group are children and the others are adults. My belief is that had the children had never been told that Santa did not exist then their schemas in adult life would include santa as a viable construct and many would believe in him in absolute terms.

Beliefs are fluid in childhood, they tend to become rigid when belief systems have been established. I tend to the opinion that many who come to a belief in God in adult life had the principle schemas established in childhood either via parental/peer influence or through the education system leaving an innate predisposition to belief.

The only reason people seem to reject Santa is because it does not seem "sensible" to believe in him - a consequence of development not the application of objective judgement to belief systems per se. Many Christians also seem to believe in the afterlife, in ghosts, spirits and the supernatural...this may not be the case for you but you cannot deny that such beliefs are widespread in the Christian community.

These have been reinforced because of deemed acceptance within the community. Santa is not deemed acceptable as an adult belief and has therefore been rejected. His provenance and underpinning logic is, however, the same...

[bernee51]

The yeild sign that I have used means that it's part of the equation. Your comments are not part of the equation, so I have separated them.

Fine - I've added my additional comments/questions in green...save confusion.

God reveals Himself to me => I see evidence of Him everywhere (How does he show himself to you: How doesn't He show Himself to me? This would be a much shorter answer.) So what is the shorter answer? Let me guess...there is no way in which god does not show himself. Unfortunately (or fortunately) he only shows himself in this way to you as your preceptions, your consciousness is unique to you and totally subjective. Thus of no use to anyone else

God reveals Himself to me => I now understand the logic for His existance (How is his existence logical: If God reveals Himself, then logically, He exists) Same as above...the logic only applies to the observer, in this case you. What you may see as logical, others may see as illogical

So far we have god as a subjective experience...which, indeed is what you have said in other posts

God reveals Himself to me => I can plainly see that He exists (What do you see that makes it so: I see Jesus Christ manifest in the events around me) More subjectivity

God reveals Himself to me => I see that He is the Trinity (See or believe from scripture: Both) How do you see. How does your god manifest in the objective as a trinity

God reveals Himself to me => I understand my parents were right (only about this?: no) Fair enuf

God reveals Himself to me => I know Biblical references are accurate (The bible is clearly inconsistent: only because you say so) No, because it is demonsrtably so

God reveals Himself to me => I accept Jesus as my Savior (Fine - saviour from what: Savior from my sins and from the Evil One) I do not understand this

God reveals Himself to me => I repent for my sins and am justified and produce good works (Why is it necessary: Good works are not necessary. They are a result. Repentence and Justification are necessary for salvation becuse of mankind's sinful nature. Only God is Good) If you say so...

Every Christian has found objective evidence that is undeniably Jesus Christ.

So far all this so called 'objective evidence' is in fact subjective experience.

God knows what people will do before they do it. Why would he reveal Himself to people that will only reject Him for it when they are already currently rejecting Him?

In that case your god is not benevolent...and give sup to easily for someone who is omni-everything.

My subjective experience says he doesn't exist.

[concerro]

Because he a) being omniscient, knows what it would take to convince an unbeliever of his existence, b) being omnipotent has the power to do so, and c) being omnibenevolent wants us to know him and to accept him into our lives so that we can avoid damnation.

Exactly! You hit it on the nose! a) being omniscient, He knows that there is nothing that can convince some unbelievers of His existence. With this knowledge, no objective evidence is needed or given to them.; b) He does have the power, and His Master Plan is being carried out; c) Sort of. He wants His Children to know Him and to accept Him into their lives so that We can avoid damnation. I don't know who all His children are... but He does.

from your post---->being omniscient, He knows that there is nothing that can convince some unbelievers of His existence... He does have the power... I did not retype the entire post but that is the meaning I got. If I am wrong correct me

It is impossible to be able and not be able to do something at the same time. Either he knows how and can do, or he does not know how to convince and can not do it, which takes away 2 of his omnis. There is no reason why someone should not beleive in God if he existed. Some use the argument that if he revealed himself it would affect free will, and people would be obey him only out of fear. In the bible he is always present and people still ignore his words, so if god existed I am sure he would make himself known