God is not the same as Santa Claus

[Aaron the Tall]

I was listening to a debate the other day between a Christian and an Atheist. The atheist lives by a worldview where he only believes in things that can be understood by our 5 senses.

One of his points was how illogical it is to believe in God. He said "Just because we can't prove God doesn't exist isn't proof that he does exists." With this he said "you can't disprove Santa Claus doesn't exist either." This is a common argument of atheists - that believing in God is just as irrational as believing in Santa Claus (Richard Dawkins likes to bring up the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster). This atheist said "maybe Santa's home in the North Pole is just invisible and we can't detect it's really there."

There are a few problems with this straw man argument. Just because you can't detect something with the 5 senses doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. Gravity isn't visible, but you can prove it exists by how it affects the things we do see.

Similarly, it would be much harder to prove Santa doesn't exist if every Christmas morning there were presents under the tree that nobody purchased. It would be difficult to prove Santa doesn't exist if you saw reindeer tracks on your roof. These evidences could lead you to infer that Santa does exist.
However, we don't have these evidences - so it is irrational to believe that he does exist (sorry to burst somebody's bubble).

On the other hand, we do have evidence that God exists -namely that we can see something that no natural factor can seriously account for - the Universe.

 

[handy]

God calls upon us to use our reason. The idea of "blind faith" really isn't all that biblical. I know that atheists like to claim that believing in God is proof that one doesn't use reason, but that's just their game. I refuse to play it.

 

[AAA]

we do have evidence that God exists -namely that we can see something that no natural factor can seriously account for - the Universe.

What is the 'something' you refer to that you assert no natural factor could account for, and why do you assert that no natural factor could account for it.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

The "something" as I mentioned is the Universe. I hold to the common sense thought that 1) the Universe had a beginning and 2) from nothing, nothing comes - because nothing is nothing and nothing can do nothing. So 3) the Universe could not come from nothing - therefore it had to have a creator that exists outside of the natural realm.

I've heard both sides of the debate - and I'm not a scientist - so I rely on those who have studied the issue. Both sides will bring evidence to the table - but both sets of evidence are speculative as we can't watch creation happen all over again - so the hypotheses are not testable. But, we can base our understanding on what we do see and what we do know about the nature of the Universe. You may say that bringing God into the equation just complicates the issue - but how much more so does the notion that nothing can evolve into something?

As Mr. Spock said "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

 

[AAA]

The "something" as I mentioned is the Universe. I hold to the common sense thought that 1) the Universe had a beginning and 2) from nothing, nothing comes - because nothing is nothing and nothing can do nothing. So 3) the Universe could not come from nothing - therefore it had to have a creator that exists outside of the natural realm.

I don't think that anyone has ever had the opportunity to observe nothing. There's always something around in the natural universe (energy, dark matter, radiation, gravity, etc). Accordingly, I really don't think that anyone is in any position to say that it isn't a property of nothing to always lead to something, or that from nothing, something can or always comes.

What makes you think that you can determine anything about that which is beyond the natural realm?

What makes you think that things outside the "natural realm" do not require a beginning or can come from nothing?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I don't think that anyone has ever had the opportunity to observe nothing. There's always something around in the natural universe (energy, dark matter, radiation, gravity, etc).

This only proves my point. Say a scientist takes a glass jar and vacuums all the air out of it to simulate a place of "nothingness." He and his successors could view the jar for thousands - even millions of years to see if it ever became something. I would like to find one scientist who thinks it would become something. But, even in trying to achieve a place of nothingness - the scientist can't succeed because there is the presence of the glass jar, the lights, and whatever instruments are connected to the jar. Yet, even in this instance where there would be the chance of existing objects influencing our place of nothingness - nothing would or could ever happen to the nothingness if the glass remained in tact.

What makes you think that you can determine anything about that which is beyond the natural realm?

What makes you think that things outside the "natural realm" do not require a beginning or can come from nothing?

I couldn't determine anything about what is beyond the natural realm unless God stepped into the natural realm and revealed to us Himself through his Word and through His Son Jesus. (the reliability of Scriptures is another thread which I'm sure already exists somewhere)

If the natural realm requires a beginning, than it logically follows that it needs a beginning from something outside of itself. It you ask "well, how do we know God wasn't created?" I would have to say "if that were the case - His creator would actually be God - for the term "God" necessitates One who is higher in nature than all else - including existence before all else. Logically speaking, whatever started it all must have existed before everything else - which would place that being in an infinite past.

If the Universe did not exist, we wouldn't have to make any assumptions about what existed before it - but alas, it does - which makes us use what reason we have to infer about how it got here.

 

[sheshisown]

Hi AAA~

You said:

There's always something around in the natural universe (energy, dark matter, radiation, gravity, etc).

May I ask a question? Can you prove that something has always existed? Or has anyone proven it, which you can quote?

Dark energy/dark matter are each so barely understood by Scientists in any of their properties at this point, that neither of these things can be said to absolutely have existed. No one even knows what they consist of, much is merely theorized, in a hypothetical sense. This type of hypthetical theory without the ability to test it, or disprove it, is not a fact at all, but a "proposal" intended to explain certain facts or observations...

You also asked this question:

What makes you think that you can determine anything about that which is beyond the natural realm?

The difficulty here, is the assumption that there is nothing outside the known realm, nothing outside what is reality in the known. Yet every great man of science has always thought to look for the "unknown" in order to discover what is now known. Microbes were a laughing matter, as was the vastness of our Universe to those who refused to accept that the data did not always register what was actual.

What is to prove you correct, if you carry a jaded view toward those who are willing to look beyond the data which is ledgible~ and may find what you adamantly repeat ~is not.

sheshisown~

 

[AAA]

I don't think that anyone has ever had the opportunity to observe nothing. There's always something around in the natural universe (energy, dark matter, radiation, gravity, etc).

This only proves my point. Say a scientist takes a glass jar and vacuums all the air out of it to simulate a place of "nothingness." He and his successors could view the jar for thousands - even millions of years to see if it ever became something. I would like to find one scientist who thinks it would become something...

No scientist, or person, could answer this question. We are ignorant, and in the place of our ignorance, you put the Christian god.

I'm just pointing out the fault in the premise of your argument, and that fault is that nobody knows what nothing is capable of. Period.

The other fault in your reasoning is that nobody knows if there ever was nothing: it is possible that there has always been something, and from that mindless something, all that we know of, including this universe, has arisen.

Another problem with your reasoning is that there is an unbroken history spanning millennia replacing mankind's religious and superstitious explanations for the unknown with real knowledge. Never has this enlightenment gone the other way, that is, never has a scientific explanation been replaced by a religious one: not once. What do all these mistakes of mankind teach us? That we humans have a strong tendancy to invent agents, often ones that are very much like ourselves but with added magical powers to explain the things we don't understand. Think of Zeus producing lightening, evil spirits causing warts, fertility gods being responsible for pregnancy, etc. Of course, that knowledge doesn't prove that god didn't create everything...It only suggests, rather strongly, that you should be very skeptical of 'godidit' as an explanation, and that you should await good evidence before diving into that error again. Isn't that the most reasonable position?

We simply don't have an explanation, and you're simply saying that you're going to run with 'godidit' as your explanation. Why do you need an explanation? Isn't it always better to just say 'I don't know' when you really don't know?

 

[AAA]

If the natural realm requires a beginning, than it logically follows that it needs a beginning from something outside of itself.

What makes you think that the natural universe requires a beginning?

Furthermore, it is illogical to apply the concepts of "beginning" and "cause" to a realm outside of space and time. I think that's just talking nonsense.

If the Universe did not exist, we wouldn't have to make any assumptions about what existed before it - but alas, it does - which makes us use what reason we have to infer about how it got here.

Again, what makes you think that you have to make assumptions about what must have existed "before" time/the universe? It's nonsensical to ask what came before time.

 

[AAA]

May I ask a question? Can you prove that something has always existed? Or has anyone proven it, which you can quote?

Of course not.

 

[AAA]

You also asked this question:

What makes you think that you can determine anything about that which is beyond the natural realm?

The difficulty here, is the assumption that there is nothing outside the known realm, nothing outside what is reality in the known. Yet every great man of science has always thought to look for the "unknown" in order to discover what is now known. Microbes were a laughing matter, as was the vastness of our Universe to those who refused to accept that the data did not always register what was actual.

What is to prove you correct, if you carry a jaded view toward those who are willing to look beyond the data which is ledgible~ and may find what you adamantly repeat ~is not.

sheshisown

My question does not assume that there is nothing outside the known realm. That's a non-sequitur, and it's plain false.

My question is aimed at uncovering how or why anybody feels that it is acceptable to say anything about what is unknown, let alone what might be un-knowable.

Regarding your question about what will prove me correct.... Sorry, I don't understand your question.

 

[AAA]

I was listening to a debate the other day between a Christian and an Atheist. The atheist lives by a worldview where he only believes in things that can be understood by our 5 senses.

One of his points was how illogical it is to believe in God. He said "Just because we can't prove God doesn't exist isn't proof that he does exists." With this he said "you can't disprove Santa Claus doesn't exist either." This is a common argument of atheists - that believing in God is just as irrational as believing in Santa Claus (Richard Dawkins likes to bring up the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster). This atheist said "maybe Santa's home in the North Pole is just invisible and we can't detect it's really there."

There are a few problems with this straw man argument...

I was not privy to the debate you heard, but I would like to add another point of view to the topics you've brought up.

When atheists use this line of reasoning ("Just because we can't prove God doesn't exist isn't proof that he does exists."), it should not be to try to make the point that belief in Santa Claus is just as irrational as belief in the Christian god. It is to prevent the theist from employing the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Theists commonly retort, "but you can't prove that god doesn't exist", as if that is supposed to be some sort of reason to believe that god does exist. The theist is shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist to prove that an undetectable entity does not exist, which is completely ridiculous. For example, its impossible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist (this is especially true if he and his home are invisible, as the debater suggested), but that isn't a reason to believe in Santa Claus. The only reason to begin to believe in Santa Claus is evidence that Santa Claus does exist. You even came up with what might constitute some such evidence in your post. So the atheist simply uses this line of reasoning to remind the theist that the burden of proof is on them to produce the evidence in favour of the existence of god, not the other way around. That's all.

Bertrand Russell famously accomplished the task of preventing the believer from shifting the burden of proof by proposing his celestial teapot illustration. He asked, "would you believe me if I told you that an undetectable teapot was orbiting the sun?" He was sure to emphasize that nobody could prove that such a teapot was not orbiting the sun (because the teapot in his example was undetectable - no telescope was powerful enough to see it). Now, has any reason (evidence) to believe his teapot claim been provided? Of course not: the only reason to believe that a teapot is orbiting the sun is actual evidence that one is. Russell was not making the point that belief in a celestial teapot is as irrational as belief in god. The same thing goes for the Santa Claus illustration, as it ought to be employed.