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.
Santa, do Christians believe in him? If not, why not.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
No. What would be the point of an 'impersonal god'? If there was such an entity it, for all intents and purposes, might as well not exist.TQWcS wrote: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?
How do you know the universe 'comes out of nothing'?TQWcS wrote: 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?
If it indeed did, just because there is no explanation yet known does not mean there isn't one.
I find that "I don't know' to be a perfectly acceptable and satisfactory answer.
Post #52
Allowing something to come from nothing.No. What would be the point of an 'impersonal god'? If there was such an entity it, for all intents and purposes, might as well not exist.
If something comes from nothing doens't that go against the law of conservation of matter?
Post #53
I'm not sure I can 'allow' that premise...however... (hypothetically)TQWcS wrote:Allowing something to come from nothing.No. What would be the point of an 'impersonal god'? If there was such an entity it, for all intents and purposes, might as well not exist.
If something comes from nothing doens't that go against the law of conservation of matter?
Depends on how you define 'nothing'. Is it the abscence of matter? Energy? Or both?
Does energy count as 'nothing'
If you are going to go down the 'first cause' route...What caused god to come into existence?
Post #54
He always has been. Never needed to come into existence.If you are going to go down the 'first cause' route...What caused god to come into existence?
The problem with physical existence is it must come from somewhere. Here is a quote I posted in another thread "This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking. "
Post #55
I say the same about the universe.TQWcS wrote:He always has been. Never needed to come into existence.If you are going to go down the 'first cause' route...What caused god to come into existence?
The universe as we see it now does not necessarily reflect the way it has always been.
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #56
When asked directly whether or not God exists Stephen Hawking carefully considered his response and then replied with a simple "no". This occurred on a lecture tour of America and he has repeated this assertion on a number of occasions. His reference to asking God was a use of irony.The problem with physical existence is it must come from somewhere. Here is a quote I posted in another thread "This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking. "
There is a misconception based on our perception of time as being linear that things must come from somewhere and that things must have a beginning. If we consider the origin of the universe to have been a singularity and accept relativity then the very nature of that singularity means that time would have had no meaning prior to the big bang. There would have no "before" on this basis.
Given a choice between a physical universe that is and one that was created the only option we have is to examine the evidence. There is matter and energy; the universe is expanding; no measures of God have ever been made. He shows up on no scientific instruments and can not fit into any scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe and its current state. On that basis he falls into the same class as the pink elephant and santa - any statement that says that he created the universe can be no more than an assertion that has no basis in fact.
You could say the same about the big bang. Your argument would, however, be fatally flawed in that the big bang theory is just that - a theory, and is based upon observable phenomena.
God does not appear to be observable or measurable (but of course neither is Santa)
Post #57
Yes in the beginning he was an atheist. Since then he has fiercely fought off claims of being an atheist.When asked directly whether or not God exists Stephen Hawking carefully considered his response and then replied with a simple "no". This occurred on a lecture tour of America and he has repeated this assertion on a number of occasions. His reference to asking God was a use of irony.
Science states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I am simply asking how was it created not when.There is a misconception based on our perception of time as being linear that things must come from somewhere and that things must have a beginning.
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #58
Ah, there's the rub, for the very same question can be applied to God. How was he "created"? If you answer is that he has always been then my answer to your question about how matter was created is that it has always been.Science states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I am simply asking how was it created not when.
An argument for God that uses a tenet that the universe must have been created by something is self-defeating for the same logic can then be applied to God.
In my experience the standard response to this tends towards the "beyond our understanding/not subject to physical laws/has always been" approach. The same can be said of Santa.
Post #59
"Science states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I am simply asking how was it created not when." Really? Where does "science" (or anyone) say this?
Post #60
The Law of Conservation of Matter (or Mass.. or something like that)"Science states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I am simply asking how was it created not when." Really? Where does "science" (or anyone) say this?
