I have heard athiest many times use the "Santa Clause" argument. You can't disprove or prove Santa Clause's existense in the same way you can't disprove or prove God's existense. Here is the problem with that argument. It is not WRONG to assume that Santa Clause exists. Even more so , It is actually logically functional to assume that he does. If someone told you there is a box somewhere in the room that you have never seen and they wanted you to guess what was in the box, it would be virtually impossible for you to know what was in the box. You have never experienced this box with your physical senses. You don't know what size it is. It could be as big as a house or as small as a shoe box. The point is you have no tangible or intangible evidence. You are "data blind". Any guess you would make would be as vaild as another. Whether you guessed a whale or a mouse both would still be equally valid. The only factor that could change this is if you gained "data sight" by having evidence.
2007-09-07 04:07:09 · 7 answers · asked by Red Rage 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
first of all, it's spelled "Santa Claus." "Santa Clause" was a Tim Allen movie.
Second, the mysterious box could contain explosives or roaches or drugs or poison. It is not logical to keep a box of unknown substances in your room, so your analogy fails.
It is only logical to conclude that there is no evidence for one or many gods; therefore if one chooses to accept such a concept, one should not try ot pass that off as logical.
2007-09-07 04:13:56 · answer #1 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why do you insist using the scientific method on belief. Belief that God revealed something to man.
There is no proof (based on the scientific method) pro or con to the existence of God. The question simply can not be answered. You can not use observation to come to revealed knowledge that gets to God.
Santa Clause can be found to be a creation of man. Any history of Santa will show how Santa came to be. Santa never revealed anything. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=23
Evidence is based on the scientific observation, scientific facts. In the case of Santa, it is clear that not every child gets a gift on Christmas. This is a fact. But what are the God facts? There are none.
2007-09-07 04:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by J. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My logical conclusion is this...maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't. It helps me to be a better person to believe that he does, and it gives me a little more hope for the future, so I believe it. I admit this is a utilitarian reason to believe, but I not a very emotional person--so be it.
If someone else comes to a different conclusion, they're welcome to it. You can't prove or disprove any of this stuff in a logical or scientific sense without resorting to emotional appeals, anyway.
2007-09-07 04:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might just be honest about it and say you don't know what's in the box...
It would be really odd if you guessed "Whale!" and then started acting as though you were right. "Well, it's as likely to be a whale as anything else...so I'll go start collecting plankton for when it gets hungry."
J., there's a fine line between "Christmas gift" and "answered prayer". Not all kids get either one.
2007-09-07 04:24:10 · answer #4 · answered by Doc B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have heard every 'argument' every religion has, as to why Atheists are wrong, and should believe in their god(s).
There is not a thing I haven't heard before, and re-hashing the same tired line, is just not working. You people need some new material.
There is no god. If there is, bring it on. The god that is.
2007-09-07 05:29:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming there is no evidence for or against the existence of a god, it is more rational to assume it doesn't exist by default as to allow for its existence is also to allow for equally unsupported concepts, many of which may be mutually exclusive, thus invoking paradox if you allow for the existence of all. To deny all of them is the only consistant logical path, assuming some sort of arbitrary decision must be made.
Reluctance to decide sort of works too.
2007-09-07 04:14:58 · answer #6 · answered by Lucid Interrogator 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference between believing Santa and Jesus is that by the time you are 5 years old or so y ou stop believing because you "know". With Jesus the older people get the more they believe in Jesus because well they learn and they just "know" .
Sometimes the truth takes longer to learn especially when you are self asborded and think it is about you.
2007-09-07 04:12:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋