Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Dr Free, always nice to see such a rare visitor to a thread I'm busy on.

Originally Posted by DrFree

• God requires us to believe in Him.
  Santa does not.
• God's existence is important to His believers.
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real.
• God requires us to do what He says.
  Santa's love is unconditional.
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't.
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation.
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.

• God requires us to believe in Him. So say some religions. Not all even have deity. 'He' has certainly never told me this requirement.
  Santa does not. Young children would comprehend such a requirement? The cultural complicity in the lie leaves no need to require it.
  
• God's existence is important to His believers. This is not universal to all people so how can it be deemed a truth? If God wants me to believe then why wont he tell me. Why did he only give this message to patently corrupt churches?
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real. Counter intuitive. Something that does not exist cannot be real.
  
• God requires us to do what He says. So say some written works of Man and the edicts of murderous and corrupt religious leaders of history.
  Santa's love is unconditional. How can it be, he does not exist.
  
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't. So if I go out and see a good looking woman I can beat her into loving me?
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation. Children are told if they are not 'good' Santa will not visit them.
  
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty. No, a child taught this is taught an incredulous story of virgin birth, the slaughter of innocents and that it is good to give things to the church. If that is duty I want no part of it.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give. Or a consumerist lie and that Coca Cola must be good.

Aside from the flip sides I present being on the strong side to illustrate a point I would still say that overall your presentation is fundamentally flawed as it fails to actually appreciate the lie in the Santa myth. I do not know if you have read right through the thread before posting but a point I already made is that the Santa myth is actually a part of the conditioning to believe the unbelievable. I know that you are too deeply committed to your beliefs to agree with me but to me all the lies that are in the Santa myth are found in the God myth. Anything that is so flawed I cannot take as truth.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

[/quote Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy not anything real or solid. But empirical science can study metaphysics and its claims and confirm or deny them.

I disagree. I'll explain in reference to your concern about G-d, which of course is a metaphysical concept.

If you're familiar with philosophy of science, you know that a testable hypothesis concerning the existence of G-d should allow for the possibility of the hypothesis to be disconfirmed. In fact, as Karl Popper has rightly observed, a suitable test of a hypothesis of interest is an attempt to establish something different from what you expect to find. That is, the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be empirically falsified. Properly designed studies are in fact structured in such a way that you rule out an alternate prediction or explanation. They're usually testing the Null Hypothesis. Another way to go at it is to test predictions that are based competing theories. In other words, pitting two different theories against each other.

For your purposes, in order to prove all the silly, deluded believers of the world wrong, you'd need a way to disconfirm the existence of G-d. Empirical studies involving hypothesis tests use controlled conditions, so that you can rule out causal mechanisms other than the ones you're studying. So, Tao, how would you design a replicable experiment where you run the analysis - first with, and then without - G-d in order to show that G-d's presence in the Universe has no effect on the Universe? This would be a decent start anyway if you're taking an empirical/scientific approach because a typical G-d concept will usually include something about G-d being the Creator.

Obviously, the kind of study you'd need to do is not an option. So here we are again: there is no way for you to disconfirm the existence of G-d. The issue is not amenable to hypothesis testing which is central to the scientific method. Hence, an empirical/scientific approach makes no sense. No workie.

The position you've adopted is not experimentally testable, which means that it is essentially meaningless within the real of knowing that you are dealing with. There is nowhere to go with it in that realm.

[seattlegal]

I really find it interesting how Tao Te Ching 1 fits in so well here. It cannot be tao'ed (scientifically investigated in the conventional sense.)

The principle remains whether it is named or not. Naming it cannot possibly fully describe it. Denying it a name does not nullify it.

The more we desire for it to be named or unnamed, the further away from it we become. The entrenchment on both sides we see here, and the fruit of that entrenchment...the outer fringes. (I find it interesting how we describe 'cracked individuals' as being on the 'fringe'... )

1
The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.

Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by DrFree

A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.
However you worship as an adult, the message of Santa is right for children.

Namiste,
Dr Free

Even the poor children with the lack of materialistic items?

I personally find the idea of a santa nice, but when it is put into practice in this world it looses its main message and takes on a whole new role.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The position you've adopted is not experimentally testable, which means that it is essentially meaningless within the real of knowing that you are dealing with. There is nowhere to go with it in that realm.

Ok I concede. "I admit I cannot disprove God". Happy?
But then again I have never claimed I could. What I have consistently claimed is that the religions are man made structures and that can be empirically tested. Since the religions claim to come from God, claim divine source, proving (beyond reasonable doubt) that they are the work of man and had purpose in their creation other than that generally accepted means we can make a qualitative judgement of the value of 'religious' belief. Since the central pillar of the religion in question is belief in God, to establish the religion to be fake may not destroy that metaphysical idea but it most certainly removes it as a credible proposition.

If you look at my contentions on religion throughout my history here at CR they present science based evidence but I do not present a scientific theory. What I do is much more closely related to the presentation of evidence at a trial. And I am presenting this evidence to just about the most partisan jury I could be faced with. And the best I can say is that since I am so outnumbered here, globally and historically, and I have stated unequivocally that I cannot disprove God, I challenge you to prove that he does. I will make it simpler than that. Just show one piece of evidence that can without doubt be shown to prove divine interference.

So to take it back to Popper I state what I present is verisimilitude, that which is most like the truth, not a scientific theory cast in stone and given its own place in the high street replete with bell and choir boys.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I really find it interesting how Tao Te Ching 1 fits in so well here. It cannot be tao'ed (scientifically investigated in the conventional sense.)

The original OP cannot be approached from a scientific/investigative perspective?

Tao

[Alex P]

Tao... I think what I personally would use to prove a creator.... Let it sink in as it may seem insane

Life can only come from life.... Life cannot come from nothing, that is impossible... So to me... The fact that we are all here having a debate is proof enough for me.

Psalm 36:9

For with you is the source of life....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Tao... I think what I personally would use to prove a creator.... Let it sink in as it may seem insane

Life can only come from life.... Life cannot come from nothing, that is impossible... So to me... The fact that we are all here having a debate is proof enough for me.

Psalm 36:9

For with you is the source of life....

I have thought on this. And I will state again what I have stated before, I do not discount the possibility that the Universe itself is a living thing. Even if it is I still do not believe it a God to be worshipped, feared, loved and paid for via men wearing decidedly funny clothes.

Tao

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Even if it is I still do not believe it a God to be worshipped, feared, loved and paid for via men wearing decidedly funny clothes.

Tao

I agree down to the letter.... But, others wouldn't agree, that is totally cool and totally their choice. I was just giving you my personal opinion to why I believe their is a Creator.. To some degree what I believe will mix well with others here and some of what I believe doesn't have a connection at all to their belife... I have no interest in changing your mind or converting you or anything (or any other), just answering your question on what is evidence enough personally for me to believe in a Creator.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have thought on this. And I will state again what I have stated before, I do not discount the possibility that the Universe itself is a living thing. Even if it is I still do not believe it a God to be worshipped, feared, loved and paid for via men wearing decidedly funny clothes.

Tao

Yippyeeio Kiyay.

Namaste Tao,

G!d is quite simply, quite extraordinarily a name of the undescribable!!

I'm a dancing in agreement!

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Hi, all,

There are important differences, especially between Santa and the Jesus/God that has emerged through two millennia of Christianity:

• God requires us to believe in Him.
  Santa does not.
• God's existence is important to His believers.
  Santa doesn't have to exist to be real.
• God requires us to do what He says.
  Santa's love is unconditional.
• God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't.
  Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation.
• A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty.
  A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give.

However you worship as an adult, the message of Santa is right for children.

Namiste,
Dr Free

Boy, there are so many things wrong with this where do I begin? Assuming for the moment that Santa is real:

God requires us to believe in Him. I agree with this to a certain extent. However, the devils believe and tremble.
Santa does not. I disagree with this. How are we going to get the goods if we don't sit on his lap or write him a letter?

God's existence is important to His believers. True. Else we wouldn't be believers now, would we?
Santa doesn't have to exist to be real. But he is real in that he is a veil for the parents. Who else is going to put the gifts under the tree. It's a masquarade, to be sure, but in this sense he does exist. He surely convinces those kids who visit the malls that he's exists.

God requires us to do what He says. You are confusing love with the demand for obedience. A parent will love a child unconditionally even if they are disobedient.
Santa's love is unconditional. Tell that to the Muslim and Jewish kids.

God teaches us to love by punishing us if we don't. I prefer the word 'discipline'. God conditions our hearts through conviction of our conscience the sense of right and wrong.
Santa teaches us to love by loving us without expectation. Well, what message is Santa sending to those who receive coal in their stocking. Wasn't quite what the kid was expecting. BTW, I've never encountered a child who got coal or didn't get what they wanted because they were naughty. Was that whole list thing a bluff?

A child who is taught the birth of Jesus on Christmas learns duty. I fail to see the correlation. What duty is the child to perform? Should he expected to play Joseph in the Christmas pageant?
A child who is taught about Santa on Christmas learns to love and give. No, he learns to get. He learns to beg his parents for the Wii. Then his parents out of obligation stand outside of Wal-mart at 4 am in the morning before the mad rush on Black Friday.

[Thomas]

When my twin daughters reached 18, mum and I sat them down.

"You know the tooth fairy isn't true?"
"Yes, we know that. Mum's got all our teeth anyway"
(yes, she has, in fact she's got everything from their birth on, except the placenta)

"You know you weren't found under a gooseberry bush?"
"Yes we know that. You said (each refers to the other) was found in a rubbish skip."

"You know Santa doesn't exist?"
(long pause) "That depends."
"On what?"
"On whether if we say yes, we stop getting santa presents at Christmas."

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

When my twin daughters reached 18, mum and I sat them down.

"You know the tooth fairy isn't true?"
"Yes, we know that. Mum's got all our teeth anyway"
(yes, she has, in fact she's got everything from their birth on, except the placenta)

"You know you weren't found under a gooseberry bush?"
"Yes we know that. You said (each refers to the other) was found in a rubbish skip."

"You know Santa doesn't exist?"
(long pause) "That depends."
"On what?"
"On whether if we say yes, we stop getting santa presents at Christmas."

You had them waiting until 18 to tell them there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy?

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Dondi

You had them waiting until 18 to tell them there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy?

I think the question is, do you really believe that at the age of 18 you didn't think they knew better anyway lol....

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

You had them waiting until 18 to tell them there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy?

gotta wait till the wisdom teeth are removed?