Detached9

Santa Claus is defined as a jolly old fat man with a white beard, a red suit, who lives in the North Pole, and delivers presents to kids on Christmas by flying on his sleigh.

There is no evidence of Santa Claus existing in the North Pole, and there is no evidence of someone who flies through the sky and delivers christmas presents. How does this differ from God? Santa Claus is composed of matter, and God is not composed of matter.

AtlanticCitySlave

Yes, but lack of evidence doesn't mean Santa doesn't exist. Oddly, in your other thread (where you take a skeptical point of view concerning strong atheism), you can't use your own logic on this issue.

Philosoft

Pseudonym, you have now made a positive, non-obvious claim that requires evidence. Please show the following:

1) That it is possible to deny the existence of what one cannot or has not defined, and thus has no concept of.

2) That there are individuals who actually hold this position of "strong atheism."

Detached9

lack of evidence doesn't mean Santa doesn't exist

It's a complete absense of evidence, not insufficient evidence. The characteristics of Santa have not been found where they are said to be found (in the North Pole or in the sky on Christmas day).

As long as there is something unexplainable, God's existence is a possibility. I admit that there is a possibility of God existing, but I personally don't hold belief in God (hence I am a negative atheist).

There was a time when we couldn't detect x-rays. Maybe in the future we can detect God? I can't really say. At the moment we have no observable evidence of God's existence.

Maybe God exists in a similar fashion as the wind exists? We can indirectly detect the existence of wind, and maybe we can indirectly detect the existence of God? I personally haven't seen such evidence, and I haven't had any religious experience, so I personally lack belief in God.

I think I went off on a tangent somewhere.

Detached9

Oddly, in your other thread (where you take a skeptical point of view concerning strong atheism), you can't use your own logic on this issue.

I take it you are referring to me using the argument from illusion to illustrate the possibility of God existing. I admit that it is a possibility that we could just be brains-in-a-jar, but I don't think it's a possibility ever worth considering. Why? Because any argument that tries to prove that our senses aren't trustworthy must presuppose that our senses are trustworthy.

I believe in an objective reality. I believe that you can't rationally doubt an object's existence, only what properties the object holds. (I am not an epistemic relativist, basically.) I admit that there may not be an objective reality, but I believe there is one anyways.

Maybe you could point out the contradiction for me? It's not immediately apparent to me at the moment.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

You're gonna hurt yourself if you keep backpeddling like this: 'God can't be disproven, but I can disprove Faeries. Well, maybe not, but I can disprove bigfoot. Oh well, perhaps not. Why not ask me about Santa Clause? Oops!"

And now we find that your marvelous disproof is that you've yet to find your comicbook version of St. Nicholas in the poorly explored Artic. Would you like to try your hand at leprechauns?

[ edited to correct spelling errors -- a seemingly unending task ]

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

tommyc

My personal conclusions from lurking in this thread:

Pseudo's definitions:

Strong Atheist: I know with 100% certainty that God does not exist
Weak Atheist: I don't believe that God exists
Agnostic: Don't know
Thiest: I know with 100% certainty that God exists

My response: Strong atheists do not claim with 100% certainty that God does not exist. The argument can't go further until this point is cleared up.

WJ

Re "My point is that there is a difference between Strong Atheism and theism. Where is there evidence beyond belief that any god exists?"


John, my point is then, what type of evidence do you, should you, (and to some degree, can you) expect? In other words, do you feel it appropriate for there to exist physical evidence (of such a being or force)?

Walrus

Totalitarianist

And the North Pole is a lake.

tommyc

I think you'll find that Father Christmas (Santa), lives in Lapland actually. His compass wouldn't work properly at the North pole, so he'd never find his way to America, where he drops all the best presents.