Smart Kid

[BillyJoe]

So you're picking a deist God?

And your suggestion that he doesn't exist is that there's no proof against it? There's also no proof against Russell's Invisible Teapot, if you're playing by those criteria...

I think you meant: "And your suggestion that he DOES exist is that there's no proof against it?"
The answer is no, that is not my suggestion.
For the fourth time what I am saying is that the lack of evidence for god doesn't mean that god does not exist.

Your argument remains that it's more plausible to remain agnostic over God than over Santa because the God character is more powerful. As far as I can tell, the more extensive a character's powers, the more plausible it is, in your opinion - this is clearly absurd.

And I am not talking about agnosticism either.
It's purely a question of logic: lack of evidence does not equal does not exist.
I suppose I am saying, in a sense, that the idea of god is more powerful than the idea of santa (for reasons enumerated above).
I don't think that opinion is absurd.

Santa Claus has not been 'disproven'. There is strong evidence against his existence, hence I don't believe in him. The same is true of God, unless you have some inarguable way of disproving Santa.

Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence. The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.
Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.

 

[BillyJoe]

There should be a not in there as in the universe doesn't give a crap how we choose to describe it.

Ah, you meant "Human decisions about what abstractions to use for phenomena do not have an affect on the nature of the phenomena."
Why are you arguing with me then. You agree with me.

That cannot be determined.

Again you agree with me.
Because there is no evidence for "vibrating strings", it cannot be determined whether or not "vibrating strings" exist. In other words, the lack of evidence for them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[cyborg]

In other words, the lack of evidence for them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.

 

[RandFan]

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.

And no one is praying to tiny little strings hopping to find their lost puppy.

 

[BillyJoe]

I think you are failing to see the corollary here: just because one can model phenomena using tiny little strings it does not mean that things are really made of tiny little strings.

You are not saying anything that matters to anything.

Of course the "vibrating strings" are abstractions. As are "atoms". But they are abstractions of some underlying reality (or not, whichever it turns out to be) that we cannot directly observe.

If you like you can expand "vibrating strings" to "the underlying reality of which vibrating strings are an abstraction" if you wish.
I'll stick with "vibrating strings" and refer you back here if necessary.

It really makes no difference to the argument.

 

[BillyJoe]

And no one is praying to tiny little strings hopping to find their lost puppy.

Hopping?
And no one is praying to a deist god either.

 

[RandFan]

Hopping?

I should have said rabbit instead of puppy...

And no one is praying to a deist god either.

Deism is cool by me.

 

[Lonewulf]

Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence. The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.
Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.

Your argument fails.

You did not disprove that Santa exists. You merely wrote it off as silly. Let's see, there's a term for that, isn't there?

Either way, you have yet to disprove it. As such, Santa and God are still equal. Sorry.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm glad to see you take the question of the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie seriously.

I'm sure there's a term for that too.

 

[BillyJoe]

Deism is cool by me.

How about you, Lonewulf?
Seeing as you take santa claus, the tooth faerie, and the easter bunny seriously...

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm glad to see you take the question of the existence of santa claus, the easter bunny, and the tooth faerie seriously.

Another non-argument.

There were people that didn't take the idea of the atom existing seriously, two millenium ago. Does that mean that the atom doesn't exist?

Your own argument fails against you, if it does.

I'm sure there's a term for that too.

That's called, "Willing to prove a point".

I consider the belief of God to be about as logical and serious as Santa, and if you cannot actively disprove Santa Clause, then he is just as logical as God. You cannot see or disprove either.

How about you, Lonewulf?

How about me what? I did not know that arguments were based on voting.

Please disprove that Santa exists that cannot also be applied to God. If you refuse, then it will be rather telling...

Seeing as you take santa claus, the tooth faerie, and the easter bunny seriously...

Your claim, not mine. At least come up with some more interesting or inventive strawman, would you? The ones you're using make you look really foolish... anyways...

I take the argument that Santa has just as much logic behind it as God seriously. I stand behind that argument, unless you can thoroughly disprove it. So far, you have been as weak and impotent in such efforts as a ninety year old that lost his viagra is in proving the Kama Sutra.

 

[wolfgirl]

Come on already. Santa is a fantasy tale told to children for entertainment purposes only. No one even seriously entertains the question of santa's existence.

Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?

Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.

There.

 

[wolfgirl]

The question of god's existence, however, is worth considering if only for the reaon that an enormous number of people do seriously believe in his existence.

Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true. Shall we decide which god is actually the real one based on which one has the most followers? After all, if "an enormous number of people" believe in one certain god, then that one must be real, right? Of course, an enormous number will also believe in the second-most-popular one, too, but I guess it's whichever one has the enormous-est number...

 

[wolfgirl]

Also there is no evidence against god's existence.
If you think there is please provide it.

And as many of us have said, there is no evidence against Santa's existence. If you think there is please provide it. "Nobody's ever seen him" doesn't count. "He is illogical" doesn't count. "We've been to the North Pole, and he's not there" doesn't count.

Our saying there is no evidence against Santa's existence, to clear this up once and for all, does not imply that we take the possibility of his existence seriously. It just means that we cannot, nor can anyone, actually prove that he doesn't exist. In the same way, we cannot, nor can anyone, actually prove that gods don't exist. We can, however, choose to believe, based on what we know, in Santa and in gods, or not to believe in them.

My choice, as I believe I've made abundantly clear, is not to believe in either, for basically the same reasons. No compelling evidence for such a belief.

 

[wolfgirl]

God, on the other hand, arose out of a serious need to explain some of the most important things in our universe.!

Bingo! This hits the nail on the head! I'm glad you've finally grasped it!

As you said, God arose out of the need to explain...

Primitive humans needed some way to explain those things which they could not possibly be expected to understand in their time. They therefore created a god hypothesis to explain those things. That hypothesis has been proven to be the incorrect explanation for a great many things over the millenia. Yet many of us still cling to it to explain those things that we have yet to explain scientifically.

 

[Lonewulf]

Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?

Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.

There.

Y'know, Billy Joe considers himself a Philosopher, but I have to say: Socrates he ain't.

Anybody that took Philosophy 101 would have seen that refutation come a mile away.

Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true.

And this refutation, for that matter. Argument by popularity is a fallacy. Though he wasn't using the majority of believers as "proof", but instead to state that, because a majority of people believe in something, it must be taken more seriously than Santa Clause.

Though if I follow that ridiculous line of logic, many new scientific discoveries could be disregarded as silly because "the majority of people disregard them as silly". The majority finding something silly or taking something seriously has no bearing at all on the logic or illogic of a concept.

If the majority of people in a state consider evolution to be bull and silly, then evolution = silly. Same BillyJoe logic.

Anyways, BillyJoe obviously can't disprove Santa Clause. Rather telling to everyone but him...

 

[BillyJoe]

There were people that didn't take the idea of the atom existing seriously, two millenium ago. Does that mean that the atom doesn't exist?
Your own argument fails against you, if it does.

This argument falls against you actually...

You're saying that the question of whether or not the atom exists is analagous to the question of whether or not santa claus exists???
Do you really think that santa claus will be proven one day to exist???
The plain fact is that santa was never meant to be taken seriously by anyone but, when Democritus proposed the existence of the atom he was saying something serious. He didn't say it to amuse people with fairytales he never intended to be true.

I consider the belief of God to be about as logical and serious as Santa...

Let's hear that again: You consider belief in god to be as serious as the belief in santa. Please read that again. Now tell me: who, outside of pre-schoolers, takes the belief in santa seriously. Now compare you answer the question of who takes the belief in god seriously.

...and if you cannot actively disprove Santa Clause, then he is just as logical as God. You cannot see or disprove either.

Nobody outside yourself seems to take the belief in santa seriously, so I will leave that question for you to answer at your leisure and for your own amusement.
My aim here is not to disprove santa, but to show you the reason why god cannot be dismissed as easily as santa, that reason being that santa was never meant to be taken seriously and has never ever been taken seriously by anyone over the age of five, that being the age group for whom this little tale was thought up, by those over five, solely as a form of amusement and fantasy.

How about me what? I did not know that arguments were based on voting.

Seems the only way you can think of to win this argument is by changing what I am saying into something you think you can refute.
I am saying that nobody takes santa seriously, whereas billions of people take god seriously, which is part of the reason I am giving that you cannot dismiss god as easily as santa. I am not, repeat not, talking about a popularity contest.

Please disprove that Santa exists that cannot also be applied to God. If you refuse, then it will be rather telling...

It's fine to put your own argument. It is not fine to tell me what argument I must use and, at the same time, ignore the argument I am actually making.

Your claim, not mine [about taking santa seriously]. At least come up with some more interesting or inventive strawman, would you? The ones you're using make you look really foolish... anyways...

The problem is you ignore the argument I am using - that nobody over five takes santa seriously, that santa was never meant to be taken seriously, that santa was never meant to answer any serious questions of existence. Billlions of people take god seriously as an answer to serious questions which have never, and perhaps will never, be answered. Therefore god cannot be dismissed as easily as santa. You say he can, so I say to you that you must show me why the concept of santa must be taken seriously. Seems fair to me. Especially since you seem to be avoiding answering that question despite it having been put several times.

I take the argument that Santa has just as much logic behind it as God seriously. I stand behind that argument, unless you can thoroughly disprove it. So far, you have been as weak and impotent in such efforts as a ninety year old that lost his viagra is in proving the Kama Sutra.

Seriously?

 

[BillyJoe]

Y'know, Billy Joe considers himself a Philosopher, but I have to say: Socrates he ain't..

That title is not of my choosing. It has ben bestowed upon me by the JREF, as you well know.

Anybody that took Philosophy 101 would have seen that refutation come a mile away.

That refutation is a very good one but it does not address my argument, but another argument that I have clearly not made. It is therefore not a legitimate argument in this case.

Argument by popularity is a fallacy. Though he wasn't using the majority of believers as "proof", but instead to state that, because a majority of people believe in something, it must be taken more seriously than Santa Clause.

So why have you been trying to make out that I have?
But, okay, now you are beginning to see the argument at least.
Now you just need to see that this is true. And obviously true. Still it is only part of the argument. The other has to do with the serious and, as yet unresolved, questions that god addresses.

Though if I follow that ridiculous line of logic, many new scientific discoveries could be disregarded as silly because "the majority of people disregard them as silly". The majority finding something silly or taking something seriously has no bearing at all on the logic or illogic of a concept...

And when no one takes it seriously and no one ever meant it to be taken seriously and when it doesn't address any serious questions...
You don't think that makes a difference?

 

[Lonewulf]

This argument falls against you actually...

Ah, silly young fool...

You're saying that the question of whether or not the atom exists is analagous to the question of whether or not santa claus exists???

No. I see you have missed the point, but I am not surprised.

Do you really think that santa claus will be proven one day to exist???

No. Point missed.

The plain fact is that santa was never meant to be taken seriously by anyone...

So? That does not necessarily mean that he doesn't exist.

...but, when Democritus proposed the existence of the atom he was saying something serious. He didn't say it to amuse people with fairytales he never intended to be true.

Just like the borderline crackpot spouts out how the Illuminati is out to get him, he isn't saying it to amuse people. Yet, it amuses people.

Let's hear that again: You consider belief in god to be as serious as the belief in santa.

I'm saying that santa, like god, is unprovable, and that both are analogous in that sense, yes.

Please read that again. Now tell me: who, outside of pre-schoolers, takes the belief in santa seriously. Now compare you answer the question of who takes the belief in god seriously.

Argument from Incredulity = Fallacy.

Try again, pseudo-philosopher.

Nobody outside yourself seems to take the belief in santa seriously, so I will leave that question for you to answer at your leisure and for your own amusement.

So, santa is unprovable, and he has not been disproven, then. Even though you refuse to retract your statement that Santa has been disproven, that's okay, I'll forgive you. We all make mistakes, you including. Anyhow...

Case closed.

The rest of your post can safely be ignored.

You have pretty much proven my point, even though you refuse to do so willingly. No matter, my work here is done.

 

[BillyJoe]

Your argument for why belief in Santa is different from belief in gods is that belief in Santa is silly?
Okay, my argument is that belief in gods is silly.

The word is "serious". See reply to LW

Saying that a lot of people believe in something doesn't really constitute an argument for why it is more or less likely to be true. Shall we decide which god is actually the real one based on which one has the most followers? After all, if "an enormous number of people" believe in one certain god, then that one must be real, right? Of course, an enormous number will also believe in the second-most-popular one, too, but I guess it's whichever one has the enormous-est number...

You have a good refutation against an argument I clearly have not made.
See reply to LW.

And as many of us have said, there is no evidence against Santa's existence. If you think there is please provide it. "Nobody's ever seen him" doesn't count. "He is illogical" doesn't count. "We've been to the North Pole, and he's not there" doesn't count.

This is not my argument.
And, again, the operative word is "serious" (see reply to LW).

Our saying there is no evidence against Santa's existence, to clear this up once and for all, does not imply that we take the possibility of his existence seriously.

I am glad to hear it, because that adds to my statement that no one (over five) takes santa seriously. Do you also agree that santa was never meant to be taken seriously or to be taken as a serious answer to the serious questions of our existence?
Compare your answers for god.

We can, however, choose to believe, based on what we know, in Santa and in gods, or not to believe in them.

Do you seriously think anyone (over five) would choose to believe in santa??? On the other hand billions of people do choose to believe in god for the most serious of reasons.

My choice, as I believe I've made abundantly clear, is not to believe in either, for basically the same reasons. No compelling evidence for such a belief.

But that is looking at only one dimension of the comparison between god and santa. Don't you see that there are other reasons why god cannot be as easily dismissed as santa?

Primitive humans needed some way to explain those things which they could not possibly be expected to understand in their time. They therefore created a god hypothesis to explain those things. That hypothesis has been proven to be the incorrect explanation for a great many things over the millenia. Yet many of us still cling to it to explain those things that we have yet to explain scientifically.

There is still the deistic god which is unaccounted for by this argument.
But, already, you are starting to see that the god question is different form the santa question. Could what you have said above about god be applied to santa? Of course not...because no one takes santa seriously!