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]

Appeal to Islam by sincerely praying to God to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth. Then you'll know that there is not God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet.

That's what I said. Check out the other religions. Go ahead. Then check out Christianity in the way I have described. Everything will be made clear.

It works because...

Hmmm... nope. It doesn't work. If you don't have the answer, you can't possibly know that I don't.

Of course I know what my favorite color and food are. These are subjective values though, and do not exist outside of my judgement. You claim that god is objective, and therefore the situations are not analogous.

Ahhh! 8) But it DOES work! Because your favorite color and favorite food are absolute. They do not change simply because of an individual perspective. When you're talking to Bob, your favorite color and food are the same as when you're talking to Joe. Your taste doesn't change for each person that you're talking to. These situations are analogous.

[Gaunt]

Hmmm... nope. It doesn't work. If you don't have the answer, you can't possibly know that I don't.

Why must I know what something is in order to be able to say what it is not? You are misrepresenting your belief as knowledge when you are unable to justify said belief. If you are unable to justify it, it is not knowledge. Whether or not I have an alternative answer is irrelevant to your claim of knowledge. My lack of knowledge in no way makes your claim any more credible. I do not need to know what would appease the volcano gods to know that throwing virgins in won’t do it. Your belief is not knowledge simply because you say it is. Without justification, a strongly held belief is simply… a strongly held belief, and can never be knowledge no matter how much one believes it. You can believe in Santa with all your heart, soul, and mind, but that doesn’t mean he exists objectively.

Ahhh! But it DOES work! Because your favorite color and favorite food are absolute. They do not change simply because of an individual perspective. When you're talking to Bob, your favorite color and food are the same as when you're talking to Joe. Your taste doesn't change for each person that you're talking to. These situations are analogous.

If you are going to insist that these are analogous, then you must admit that God is subjective. My favorite color may not be the same as Bob's or Joe's. It is my personal preference which does not exist independent of myself. It depends on me for existance. I cannot comprehend how you can say preferences are absolute. They are not. Whether I am talking to Joe or talking to Bob in your example, the perspective is still mine, and therefore of course my preference does not change. It is still my perspective we are discussing. It does not have any bearing on Bob's preference for a different color however. Both views are equally valid and do not exist independent of their respective owners.

If my favorite color is green and your favorite color is red, are you saying that I am incorrect in what I consider my favorite color to be? It is a subjective value, and thus relative to the individual.

You cannot claim that this is a valid analogy if you claim that God exists objectively.

That's what I said. Check out the other religions. Go ahead. Then check out Christianity in the way I have described. Everything will be made clear.

You missed the point of my little quip there. The same thing you have said for Christianity can be said for any other religion, like Islam for instance. Simply because there are more than one solution offered, it does not follow that any of them is necessarily correct however. It is equally possible that all of them are incorrect.

For instance in the case of 2 + x = 4. If the answers offered are 5, 72, of 22.5, then none of them are correct. They are all equally incorrect answers, even though they are all different.

[potwalloper.]

GreenLight311 wrote:

appeal to Christianity by sincerely praying to Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth and to receive the Holy Spirit. Then you'll know that Christ is the only God.

Gaunt wrote

Appeal to Islam by sincerely praying to God to forgive your sins and ask Him to show you the truth. Then you'll know that there is not God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet.

Sorry to bang on about this one but ...

"Appeal to Santaism by sincerely praying to Santa to forgive you for being naughty and ask him to show you the presents. Then you'll know that there is no God but Santa and the elves are his prophets"

I am at a loss to see the difference between the three arguments. All ask the reader to appeal to an unverified deity in order to gain salvation (or presents) and none of them provide any logical basis for the proposition that this deity exists.

GreenLight311 wrote:

Our knowledge invalidates theirs because ours comes from God.

An interesting suggestion. I would first of all ask just what is this "knowledge" to which you refer? If it is your subjective belief then I would have to agree with Gaunt - belief is not knowledge no matter how strongly that belief is held.
Secondly you appear to believe that it "comes from God" - in what way does it come from God? What was the mechanism? A reference to biblical teachings or conclusions based on subjective judgements will add nothing of value to the debate.

GreenLight311 wrote:

Is it at all necessary to believe in God? Yes. Everyone that does not have faith in Jesus Christ will suffer eternally in Hell. it is absolutely necessary for anyone that wants to be good.

So what you appear to be saying here is that your God can be seen as some sort of divine blackmailer whose primary purpose is to gain praise from humans and who will torture for eternity all of those who fail to praise him.

An interesting concept of God and remarkably similar to the methods used throughout history by dictators to suppress the masses (support me or I'll torture you) hardly subtle but remarkably effective...

...and, more importantly your statement is not supported by any objective evidence that God exists anywhere except in the minds of those who believe in him, any more than Santa does.

[chrispalasz]

An interesting suggestion. I would first of all ask just what is this "knowledge" to which you refer? If it is your subjective belief then I would have to agree with Gaunt - belief is not knowledge no matter how strongly that belief is held.

For the subject of regarding the knowledge of God, read the discussion being held in "Should Creationism be taught in Classroom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=532

So what you appear to be saying here is that your God can be seen as some sort of divine blackmailer whose primary purpose is to gain praise from humans and who will torture for eternity all of those who fail to praise him.

An interesting concept of God and remarkably similar to the methods used throughout history by dictators to suppress the masses (support me or I'll torture you) hardly subtle but remarkably effective...

No, your incorrect analogy comes from the lack of understanding God. Let me explain: God does not blackmail anyone. The purpose of humanity is not to praise and worship Him. The purpose of humanity is to get to know Him. Praising and Worshiping Him is a RESULT of getting to know Him. Anyone that knows God and His great mercy will worship and praise and obey Him, not because of a threat... but because He is overwhelmingly and incomprehensibly GREAT! 8)

Besides... it is a ridiculous notion altogether to compare human wisdom and logic and knowledge, which is evil and incorrect, with the wisdom and logic and knowledge of God, which is perfect. Let's not talk about God's Wisdom. It's much bigger than this discussion. Let's keep it to the level of human wisdom where it belongs.

"Appeal to Santaism by sincerely praying to Santa to forgive you for being naughty and ask him to show you the presents. Then you'll know that there is no God but Santa and the elves are his prophets"

I am at a loss to see the difference between the three arguments. All ask the reader to appeal to an unverified deity in order to gain salvation (or presents) and none of them provide any logical basis for the proposition that this deity exists.

Sorry, I forgot to address this. I will point out the difference that you do not see. It is the same difference that is between Christainity and any other religion. If you pray to (in this case) Santa, Santa does not answer. He does not talk to anyone. Nobody knows him. God, on the otherhand, will answer every single person that sincerely prays in the name of Christ, as stated in my other post. Also, God is a verified deity. He is verified throughout history by every Christian. He is verified through the known universe through His creation. He is even verified in science and He is even verified in every other religion apart from Christianity, through other people's misconception of Him and lack of understanding for who He really is. But if they would really seek to know Him - Christ is faithful and would respond.

[potwalloper.]

Also, God is a verified deity. He is verified throughout history by every Christian

There is a flat Earth society - that doesn't mean that the Earth is flat. Just because a group of people verify something does not mean that it is true.

I refer you to earlier in the thread when I commented on logic and irrationality...

[otseng]

Great. So then it must follow that you don’t think the bible contains terribly valuable information then, as much of what is said is totally unverifiable.

Totally unverifiable? I would disagree. But, I'll leave that discussion for another thread.

But why do you bother trying to determine a rational basis for Christianity, if at the end of the road, you mealy appeal to supernatural arguments? Surely this would render Christian thought a valueless truism? This I feel is a subject that cuts quite deep into issues of religious thought, these are no insignificant murmurs.

It is not merely simply appealing to supernatural arguments. I would rather describe it as using logic and available evidence to provide arguments that would lead to the supernatural. It is not simply jumping to a supernatural conclusion in one giant step, or rather, a giant leap of faith.

If there are absolutely no rational basis for Christianity, then it would simply be blind faith. And if that was true, this entire forum would be a futile exercise.

You must dismiss it from mature, rational thought. You can by all means discuss and think about it, make art about it, write imaginative books about it, etc, but it is important that one does not try to pass it off as rational

What justification do you have for such a limitation? Surely you cannot prove that the supernatural does not indeed exist. And if there is a chance of the supernatural to exist, then how can you isolate it from the rational?

How do you determine the “plausibility” of supernatural arguments? Is it more “plausible” that Santa feeds the reindeers a high carbohydrate diet due to vast amounts of kinetic energy they burn? Or does his miraculously sustain their dietary needs? Who can say? A word like “plausible” isn’t relevant for supernatural arguments.

I think a more realistic example would be more apropos. Let's take the Anthropic Principle. I don't want to get into the details of it here. But in essense, there are only two possible scenarios to explain the universe - either the universe got incredibly lucky or the universe was planned that way. Which is more plausible? It would be up to the reader to decide, but for me, the universe being planned is more plausible. The steps to it I believe are certainly logical and rational. And I don't believe the entire argument should be dismissed simply because it leads to the supernatural.

[potwalloper.]

But in essense, there are only two possible scenarios to explain the universe - either the universe got incredibly lucky or the universe was planned that way. Which is more plausible? It would be up to the reader to decide, but for me, the universe being planned is more plausible

Observed phenomena (including the expanding universe) currently support the theory of the origin of the universe being a singularity - I am interested to understand why you believe that a planned universe is more plausible than current scientific explanations?

The problem I have with the concept of a created universe is that it does not square up with observations - omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence as concepts cannot be explained in a rational sense within our current understanding of physical phenomena. Whilst I can appreciate the attractive nature of the supernatural opt out to explain why we cannot detect God even though he appears to require infinite energy and infinite mass to meet the omni test (setting aside the enigma of relativity for a moment) I do see the supernatural as being an opt out to avoid having to face up to the uncomfortable reality that there is no objective evidence that god has ever existed other than in people's minds.

It is remarkably easy to refer to things that can never be measured or tested to support an argument - I think I showed that with my responses on Santa.

There is no objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural - no measurements, no scientific explanations, no phenomena, no observations, no effect on the physical world, no mass, no energy - nothing, nil, a big zero. Indeed when tested with every measure we have of reality it does not exist. Of course another opt out is to say that we do not yet understand how to measure the supernatural or to say it lies beyond the physical universe (the Santa 8 then begin to rear their ugly heads).

What is the logical and rational explanation of something that appears on observation to have no energy and no mass? It is that it does not exist.

If I claimed that an invisible pink elephant created the universe by waving his trunk, but provide no evidence to support this most people would label me as being stupid (yes I know that it couldn't be pink if it was invisible).

However they seem to accept blindly a proposition that some invisible deity that has no physical presence and cannot be measured (or inferred from measurements) somehow waved his wand and created the universe.

Logic can only work on what we have - we have no evidence of God's existence ergo God does not exist. Simple really.

[otseng]

Observed phenomena (including the expanding universe) currently support the theory of the origin of the universe being a singularity - I am interested to understand why you believe that a planned universe is more plausible than current scientific explanations?

I do not think a planned universe and the Big Bang would be mutually exclusive. This is touched upon in Light, stars, and creationism and Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

The problem I have with the concept of a created universe is that it does not square up with observations - omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence as concepts cannot be explained in a rational sense within our current understanding of physical phenomena.

I think the concept of a created universe and a god that is omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent are separate issues. One does not have to believe in an omniscient god to believe in a creator.

As an alternative to the concept of a created universe, please start a thread explaining a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

That there is no objective evidence that god has ever existed other than in people's minds.

We have no evidence of God's existence ergo God does not exist.

I would disagree. But I will leave that discussion for the Does God exist? thread.

[bernee51]

God, on the otherhand, will answer every single person that sincerely prays in the name of Christ, ...

and you have repeatable, verifiable evidence of this...or not.

Also, God is a verified deity. He is verified throughout history by every Christian.

that does not mean he exists other than for christians.

He is verified through the known universe through His creation.

there arre other explanations...beginnnig with...the universe exists for no reason other than it exists.

He is even verified in science and He is even verified in every other religion apart from Christianity, through other people's misconception of Him and lack of understanding for who He really is.

how do you know it is they who are decieved and not you? I know very faithful muslims who would say exactly the same thing as you...can you both be right? If not, why not?

[TQWcS]

Even if the universe does just exist to exist. Do you not agree that it would make more sense if there was at least an impersonal God that created it all?

It is here because it is here does not get to the point of how it is here. Shouldn't there be a scientific explanation of how something arose out of nothing?