|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2001 : 12:42:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are evidential arguments to be made against the existence of Santa Claus... are there any such arguments to be made against the existence of God?
Are the arguments against the existence of Santa Claus any different than one's against the existence of god(s)? In other words, why couldn't one take all the arguments against SC, and substitute god(s), and still have a perfectly valid argument?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
 |
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 12:54:21 [Permalink]
|
God doesn't live at the north pole :)
(though I suppose meterological sats have proved he's not in the clouds either!)
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 13:42:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
There are evidential arguments to be made against the existence of Santa Claus... are there any such arguments to be made against the existence of God?
Are the arguments against the existence of Santa Claus any different than one's against the existence of god(s)? In other words, why couldn't one take all the arguments against SC, and substitute god(s), and still have a perfectly valid argument?
First off, we have the empirical argument put forth just above regarding Santa's habitation.
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole. (definition)
2. If Santa exists, there is probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. Santa probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
We also have two arguments based on Santa's alleged attributes and actions:
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who lives indefinitely. (definition)
2. Man is mortal, and cannot possibly live indefinitely. (assumption)
3. If Santa exists, he does what no man can possibly do. (1&2)
4. But Santa is a jolly fat man. (from 1)
5. If Santa exists, he is a man and yet not a man. (3 & 4)
6. Santa does not exist. (PNC)
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who personally delivers gifts to all the worlds' children every Christmas. (definition)
2. No man can possibly do this, since it requires accelerating lethally fast every Christmas Eve without getting killed. (assumption)
3. If Santa exists, he does what no man can possibly do. (1&2)
4. But Santa is a jolly fat man. (from 1)
5. If Santa exists, he is a man and yet not a man. (3 & 4)
6. Santa does not exist. (PNC)
I'd love to see someone come up with parallel arguments about God. Or do you intend to stipulate Santa as a supernatural being?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 14:10:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd love to see someone come up with parallel arguments about God.
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 14:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I'd love to see someone come up with parallel arguments about God.
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Or the round square argument for that matter.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 14:41:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole. (definition)
2. If Santa exists, there is probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. Santa probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
1. [God] is defined as a [supernatural being] who lives [in Heaven, which divides the earth from , umm, some more water]. (definition)
2. If [God] exists, there will probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. [God] probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
I'm in learning mode here, I'm not making arguments. I'm wondering if what I'm thinking about this (comparing God and Santa) is wrong, and if so, why?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 14:43:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Is that the one that asks if God can make a rock too big and heavy for He himself to move?
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 14:49:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm in learning mode here, I'm not making arguments. I'm wondering if what I'm thinking about this (comparing God and Santa) is wrong, and if so, why?
The two are not always a valid comparison, depending on what angle you take. One comparison is how they are not falsifiable beliefs because the believer can keep changing the definitions. Santa is a man, but he has magical powers that keep him from being detected. God and heaven are not physical so they do not have a detectable physical presence.
Every time you come up with a valid logical test, they will change the definitions of santa and god to make the test invalid. You end up with something that can never be tested, so can't be falsified, yet still claim it has real physical effects in the world.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:06:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole. (definition)
2. If Santa exists, there is probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. Santa probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
1. [God] is defined as a [supernatural being] who lives [in Heaven, which divides the earth from , umm, some more water]. (definition)
2. If [God] exists, there will probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. [God] probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
I'm in learning mode here, I'm not making arguments. I'm wondering if what I'm thinking about this (comparing God and Santa) is wrong, and if so, why?
I imagine that most theists would reject 1 & 2 above, whereas most Santa mythologies grant the analogous premises in the Santa/ N. Pole argument.
However, similar arguments may be put forth regarding the physical effects we ought expect from a God. Hume's argument from evil is a prime example.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:07:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[One comparison is how they are not falsifiable beliefs because the believer can keep changing the definitions.
This is what frustrates me the most in these discussions. It seems that to theists, definitions aren't worried about. Words are just thrown out without any thought as to what they mean. Science and logic depends greatly on proper and standard definitions. In order to get anywhere, we have to first settle on a few things:
- Define "supernatural"
- Define "God"
- Define "consciousness without physical form"
etc.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm feeling discombobulated today. 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:08:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
1. Santa is defined as a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole. (definition)
2. If Santa exists, there is probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. Santa probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
1. [God] is defined as a [supernatural being] who lives [in Heaven, which divides the earth from , umm, some more water]. (definition)
2. If [God] exists, there will probably be detectable physical evidence of his habitation. (assumption)
3. There is no such evidence. (observation)
4. :. [God] probably does not exist. (modus tollens)
I'm in learning mode here, I'm not making arguments. I'm wondering if what I'm thinking about this (comparing God and Santa) is wrong, and if so, why?
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
What could be wrong?
They both know if you've been naughty or nice.
If naughty one brings you a lump of coal and the other uses you as a lump of coal.
We've been to where each of them lives and found nobody home.
One has elves the other angels to make play things for them.
If you pray to either one for something you are told that your prayers will be answered--but they won't.
One you can sit at the right hand of and the other you get to sit on his lap.
No one has ever seen either but every one can still tell you what they are both like.
One is wrathfull and the other jolly.(Santa would never excommunicate a good little fella like you TD)
And when you truely grow up you stop believing in them and are a little embarrassed that you ever did.
Ho, Ho, Amen
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:09:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I imagine that most theists would reject 1 & 2 above
They shouldn't if they are Bible Literalists! 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:11:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Is that the one that asks if God can make a rock too big and heavy for He himself to move?
So what if He cannot?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:21:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I meant was, I need to prove to myself, for myself, that the belief and 'faith' I had were invalid, and no one else can do it for me
Actually you have to do the exact opposite.
The invalidity of ANY supposition is assumed. It is the base line that one must work from. You must prove your supposition is valid.
You claim there is a god, then it is up to you to prove it.
I could understand such a burden of proof if I were, say, postulating a scientific theory to a group of peers. You are saying that religion is subject to peer review? On this point, I think, we will not reach agreement.
quote:
Using a car purchase as an example is a bad idea. If you don't check out the car you can kill yourself by hitting a tree when the wheel bearing gives and you go in the ditch (happened to a friend of mine). Unless you are a fanatical follower, or are invaded by fanatical followers of another religion (sect, denom, etc) religion never killed anyone (lucky for the Witnesses, hmm?)
Somebody has not been reading her world history. The Witnesses were marched into the gas clambers hand in had with the Jews.
I actually did not know that. I knew of Gypsies, homosexuals and Jews but not Jehovah's Witnesses (to see my dissertation on my lack of good historical education, see Curriculum)
quote:
Are you actually saying that your choice of a belief system is of less importance to you that the purchase of an appliance that you will keep a few years at best?
Nope, I'm saying that as being born to a family that attended church, left church, and continued to live by a relaxed doctrine, it really has not occured to me to question this much so far in my life.
But whether I chose Ba'hai or Buddhism, noone in this country is likely to kill me for it (and am I ever thankful to live here rather than with the Taliban.)
quote:
I don't see how faith could be taken as a positive thing, it is simply a thing that I was born into.
This is odd, because people who are raised in Atheist households lack this "faith" gene. Were you "born" with it or was your "brain washed" (like the rest of us) since you were in the cradle?
I said born into faith, not born with faith ;
) I guess you could say it was brainwashing. Hold on, you already did!
quote:
lives. Just as you did when considering the supposition that the moon is constructed from dairy products. You rejected it because of lack of evidence to support it.
Would that be lack of evidence for or for the multitude of evidence AGAINST?
quote:
As abhorrent as {slavery} is to us now, I think modern society is unique in this aspect, and perhaps this should be taken into account?
Many modern people like to rewrite their history. I know we Irish do--we're all descended from kings ya know.
yeah, we Scottish didn't have much respect for lairds. We all descended from William Wallace 
Your statement on the history of Christianity is interesting and is something new to me. (As are the previous links to Mithraism) I shall attempt to research that I may further discuss and inform myself.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 15:23:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I imagine that most theists would reject 1 & 2 above
They shouldn't if they are Bible Literalists!
Perhaps not, but then I'm not really into committing larceny upon natally possessed confentionaries. If I'm gonna pilfer such things it must be from those as strong as myself.
Note: The above message was deliberately allegorically encoded to prevent NIV literalists from understanding it, just like Jesus' parables!
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
