Santa Claus, God, Hitler and Steve Jobs

[FaithlessThinker]

To theists:

You know, Santa Claus and God are very similar.

Lot of people believe in God. Lot of children believe in Santa Claus. Such children truly believe Santa Claus is real, the same way theists truly believe God is real. But when their parents tell them that Santa Claus is not real, they are devastated. Take this account for example:

"My mother's parents taught her to believe in Santa Claus. My mom said it hurt her deeply when she discovered that they had lied to her, so she didn't want to lie to us. My dad was just very, very spiritual and refused to lie to us. So I never believed in Santa Claus." Quoted from here.

The author's mom during her childhood truly believed in the existence of Santa Claus. She was taught by her parents to believe so. When they revealed that Santa Claus is merely a lie, she was deeply hurt because she had expected her parents to be trustworthy, but found herself vulnerable to the lies they had taught to her.

Now, think about it. If we as children are vulnerable to truly believe in the lie of Santa Claus that our parents teach, are we not equally vulnerable to believe in Tooth Fairy, Unicorn or God if the existence of such beings is taught by our parents? How sure can we be that they are lying or telling the truth, especially when as children we tend to wholeheartedly trust our parents?

And then think about this: Do we believe in the existence of Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple)? Do we believe in the existence of Adolf Hitler? If today I say, "I do not believe in Steve Jobs" does that hurt Steve Jobs in any way? Does it make him disappear and vanish into thin air?

And if I say "I believe Adolf Hitler never existed" does that change the course of history? Does the memories of concentration camps and antisemitism of WW2 Germans vanish from the world? It doesn't matter what I believe or don't believe to either of them. Steve Jobs exists today, and Adolf Hitler has existed in the past. These are facts and don't need a person's belief to support them.

On the other hand, God somehow demands and requires us to believe in him. This begs the question: If God exists for real, why does he want so badly that we believe in his existence? It makes him seem very weak and very dependent on our thought process for his existence. It's like, if we don't believe in his existence, he will cease to exist.

 

[lrkun]

Do you mean to say that belief in relation to things unknown is a dangerous word?

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Do you mean to say that belief in relation to things unknown is a dangerous word?

How did you arrive at that conclusion from my write-up?

Anyway what I want to point out (to the theists) is our vulnerability, especially as children, believe in things that are told to us, and also how belief (read: religious faith) is quintessential in religion so much that the very existence of god seems to depend on the belief of his believers.

 

[lrkun]

Do you mean to say that belief in relation to things unknown is a dangerous word?

How did you arrive at that conclusion from my write-up?

Anyway what I want to point out (to the theists) is our vulnerability, especially as children, believe in things that are told to us, and also how belief (read: religious faith) is quintessential in religion so much that the very existence of god seems to depend on the belief of his believers.

It popped into my head as I read your post.

Can you imagine a world where everyone tests each other, all the time, everytime? What I mean is, in order for me to know if you are trust worthy, I'll test you by giving you a simple task to do, like buy coffee, and if you can do so, I might rely upon you, but if you can't, then I won't.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Can you imagine a world where everyone tests each other, all the time, everytime? What I mean is, in order for me to know if you are trust worthy, I'll test you by giving you a simple task to do, like buy coffee, and if you can do so, I might rely upon you, but if you can't, then I won't.

Interesting. But I could buy you coffee and still lie to you about Santa Claus.

 

[lrkun]

Can you imagine a world where everyone tests each other, all the time, everytime? What I mean is, in order for me to know if you are trust worthy, I'll test you by giving you a simple task to do, like buy coffee, and if you can do so, I might rely upon you, but if you can't, then I won't.

Interesting. But I could buy you coffee and still lie to you about Santa Claus.

True, what I mean is, I'm contemplating a situation where belief does not exist. Hehe, it seems absolute though. Then again, to me, to do is everything, and a word or two mean nothing. So, I probably will let your lie go, as long as you're able to buy that coffee. Hehe.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Very good anon, though I'd be wary of ever bringing up Hitler in an argument with theists (or even over the Internet in general.)

Of course, as a historian, if anyone ever *said* to me that they didn't believe in Hitler, I would bitch-slap them so hard it would make Goebbels dizzy.

 

[Trons]

I may be getting in over my head on this topic, but it seems interesting and I only stand a chance to learn.

To theists:

You know, Santa Claus and God are very similar.

Lot of people believe in God. Lot of children believe in Santa Claus. Such children truly believe Santa Claus is real, the same way theists truly believe God is real. But when their parents tell them that Santa Claus is not real, they are devastated.

Now, think about it. If we as children are vulnerable to truly believe in the lie of Santa Claus that our parents teach, are we not equally vulnerable to believe in Tooth Fairy, Unicorn or God if the existence of such beings is taught by our parents? How sure can we be that they are lying or telling the truth, especially when as children we tend to wholeheartedly trust our parents?

You're analogy is fine as far as it goes, however, let's take it a little further. Some children aren't told that Santa Claus isn't real, they find out themselves. There is a way to prove that St. Nick did not visit a particular house on Christmas eve. It becomes much more difficult to prove that God doesn't exist (not pertinent to the conversation at hand, I mention it only to point out the difference between the two in the analogy.)

We can take it a step further, What if I said that Santa isn't actually a person who visits yearly, but instead I said that he is a minor deity who uses his powers to give people the desire to be a little nicer, but only has enough power to have an effect during a small portion of the year. In saying this, it would be tougher to disprove the existence of Santa.

As a parent, Yes, I lied to my children, but all of them found out by themselves with no apparent negative side effects. We also didn't go the whole 9 yards in the lie (my parents used special wrapping paper, had a friend of the family make the tags so the hand writing was different, ect.) Do I feel any regrets for doing this? Not in the least. I think that it's this kind of thing that goes towards making childhood special. Kind of like a trip to Disney World, the belief that a moms kiss can make all the pain go away or that a hug can wash away all the sadness.

And then think about this: Do we believe in the existence of Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple)? Do we believe in the existence of Adolf Hitler? If today I say, "I do not believe in Steve Jobs" does that hurt Steve Jobs in any way? Does it make him disappear and vanish into thin air?

And if I say "I believe Adolf Hitler never existed" does that change the course of history? Does the memories of concentration camps and antisemitism of WW2 Germans vanish from the world? It doesn't matter what I believe or don't believe to either of them. Steve Jobs exists today, and Adolf Hitler has existed in the past. These are facts and don't need a person's belief to support them.

On the other hand, God somehow demands and requires us to believe in him. This begs the question: If God exists for real, why does he want so badly that we believe in his existence? It makes him seem very weak and very dependent on our thought process for his existence. It's like, if we don't believe in his existence, he will cease to exist.

I think to continue on this line of reasoning, it would be easier if we define some terms:

Belief: Having a knowledge of something through the exposure to evidence of the subject or topic, without having personal experience of the subject or topic.

Faith: Believing in something/someone without evidence

I am using the definitions that I've been taught and therefore when I use the words, this is what I'm referring to. The definitions may not be technically correct and if provided a more correct definition, I'll be more then happy to adjust my usage of the words.

Having said that, I've also been taught that God demands Faith, not belief. I'll leave that for another discussion however.

I think it would also be safe to say that from a child's perspective, a parent may be somewhat akin to a god. Omniscient, omnipotent, and, hopefully, omnipresent. This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago when my children were much younger. I was asked why I demanded immediate and unquestioning obedience from my children. It was suggested that I treat them as young people and reason with them instead of punishing them when they didn't obey. We were talking about toddler aged children. My response was that if my son, as an example, is in the yard playing and his ball rolls out into the street and he starts running to get it, he may not see the on-coming car or if he does see it, he may not understand the danger it presents. When I yell "stop" I do not want him to feel he has the right or ability to question or ignore that order.

Having said that, I have always taught my children that when somebody in a position of power tells them to do something, they need to do it, but after, if they would like to know the why of it, they should pick an appropriate time to ask and have a reasonable expectation of a satisfactory answer. I have also taught them that they may not always like or approve of the reasoning. Hopefully this does not cause them trouble as they reach adulthood.

 

[Andiferous]

I agree to some extent, Trons.

Meme and I had a similar discussion recently, oddly enough. My argument was unabashedly pro-santa. Children are 'vulnerable' to jumping from the bed and pretending they have superpowers, but this doesn't make them broken or damaged or somehow deranged. We often forget that it takes years to really develop a sense of 'reason,' and everything prior to that is play and exploration. Children are little people and they have their own personalities, and one day these will break through their dependency on adults and environment. If they were little programable drones I would be much more concerned, because it seems much more useful for them to practice thinking on their own.

And yes, I do agree that the Christian god comes off as a bit needy and juvenile in the bible, but I don't think this ties neatly into Santa Claus.

 

[Trons]

Ironically, when I read this topic, I thought of Meme, and the conversation about the absolute authority I had over my children when they were younger, was with Meme. He can be difficult sometimes.

That the christian god comes off as needy doesn't surprise me. I think everybody, either consciously or unconsciously, has a desire to be needed. I like to pretend my wife needs me (she'll shatter that illusion right, quick and in a hurry like, if she ever heard me say that,) and I go out of my way to make sure that she feels I need her. I see more as human nature that people who believe in the absolute truth of the word of god would interpret that word as him needing them.

Having said that, I am not trying to imply that people who believe in god have any type of psychosis, or that they were unloved as children. I'm just saying what I literally said. If I'm going to interpret anything, I am probably going to do it from a personal perspective and if I'm trying to fill a void, I'm going to shape the subject of my interpretation to achieve that very personal goal.

Back to the topic of the thread, I'm going to take it a step further, in the santa/god analogy. What if, projecting that analogy further, we, as a people, are the children, and God is the parent. From that perspective and using the reasoning that we both seem to agree on, it may be safe to assume that if God is lying to us, there may be a good reason, even if it's just to maintain the wonder of our youth for as long as possible. Please do not read that as a possible explanation as the reasoning of God. I'm simply using it as a conversation piece.

 

[Noth]

Taking that as a conversation piece then

Firstly a little something concerning the Santa/ God analogy.
I've never believed in Santa Claus... I believed in the European (in my case: Dutch) one on which Santa Claus was loosely based . But I was at some point told that this person wasn't real and it was my parents who brought the presents and it was they that knocked on our door at around 7 at night and dropped off the cloth sacks with all the wrapped good stuff. My world wasn't shattered. It was sort of like 'being let in on a grown-up secret' if you know what I mean. It was exciting. It was a veil I was now a part of, that I could help maintain.

The difference with God was that my parents actually believe he exists (the Christian one). So I was never let in that it could be another lie.
The next obvious, and probably more important, difference was that 'not believing God had a consequence' and that it was a more profound thing, this religion, than just a man who brings presents once a year. I know not every ex-theist has had the same negative experience with religion when growing up, but the fear of hell was a very real thing to me. I had/have a very vivid, live and lifelike imagination and something like finding out that one of my older brothers didn't go to church any more (in my young brain this pretty much equalled not believing at all) would upset me for years on end, often without someone to really speak to about the subject.

But I grew up and eventually grew out of religion (taking, first, a deistic route followed by a spiritual one leading, eventually, to 'complete atheism' if you will) and, most important for your conversation piece grew apart and independent from my parents.
So now that we're back on topic...
I had wanted my parents to remain a beacon of intelligence, a source of comfort when I was in need and keepers of some mysterious truth that I had yet to work out. When I discovered that I out-reasoned them it was like a loud wake-up call telling me that "you no longer need to heed your parents' every word. Time for you to leave the nest."
What if my parents had wanted to keep me young? How would I have responded? I surely would not have been better off being lied to about something. Even something that would have hurt me deeply had I known... I would have wanted, and, I feel, would have deserved to know.

Being lied to by your parents is very useful for growing up and learning about the hazards of the world. But there comes a point where the child grows out of the magical world of youth and into a world where he himself has to look at things, discover, get hurt, come to terms with reality and recover to (if all goes right) improve and possibly even exceed the limits of your parents, however sad it may be to see you've grown wiser than them.
If we were to, momentarily, concede the existence of (for the moment the Christian?) god it would lead me to wonder why being lied to all our life (I presume this is what you would mean?) is in any way the right kind of parenting. Even if knowing the truth may be dangerous, hurtful, shocking beyond belief and shake the foundations of my existence... I would grow up to the point where I would want to know; where I would deserve to know.
And if the lie is so White that is super beneficial to humanity to keep it intact I'd wonder how an omnipotent, omniscient god could have let the world come to a situation where upholding the Great White Lie was something to consider at all.

 

[Trons]

Being lied to by your parents is very useful for growing up and learning about the hazards of the world. But there comes a point where the child grows out of the magical world of youth and into a world where he himself has to look at things, discover, get hurt, come to terms with reality and recover to (if all goes right) improve and possibly even exceed the limits of your parents, however sad it may be to see you've grown wiser than them.
If we were to, momentarily, concede the existence of (for the moment the Christian?) god it would lead me to wonder why being lied to all our life (I presume this is what you would mean?) is in any way the right kind of parenting. Even if knowing the truth may be dangerous, hurtful, shocking beyond belief and shake the foundations of my existence... I would grow up to the point where I would want to know; where I would deserve to know.
And if the lie is so White that is super beneficial to humanity to keep it intact I'd wonder how an omnipotent, omniscient god could have let the world come to a situation where upholding the Great White Lie was something to consider at all.

While I understand the position your coming from, it is based on a few assumptions that I feel should be expressed succinctly.

A) The God/Santa or God/parent analogy is even close to accurate, and;
B) If we suppose the existence of a god, he's lying to us for any reason, to any degree.

A) I think the god/parent analogy is closer to the normal view point of theists. I leave my personal theistic faith out of the equation for this, conversation. Let's try to establish, agree on and discuss, a common idea for how a "normal" theist would view god. If asked specific questions about my personal faith structure, I'll be more then happy to answer, however I don't think it's important to the discussion at hand.

I believe the parent analogy is more accurate based on common perception of god because I've heard so many Christians say "God, the Father." I also think a lot of the wonder that people feel towards god is much more akin to a child asking a parent a question and being surprised the parent knows the answer...blah blah blah. Using this analogy, it would be safer, I feel, to use the demanding obedience type of parent then the let's reason with a small child type of parent. This also fits more with most christian dogmas of "do as God says or burn in Hell." Agreeing to this analogy of god, helps us move forward with the idea that if there is a god, he's going to be the type of parent that knows far more about the dangers of the world (universe?) then we do and therefore when he tells us to do something, it might not be a bad idea, even if we don't understand why.

This leads us into B). Following the above supposition about the existence of god, we can wonder as to whether he's lying to us or trying to protect us from some unseen danger. Since we've covered the concept of unseen danger, let's go with the idea that he may be lying. I agree with the idea that at some point the child needs to break out on his own. I have a 19 year old (almost 20) daughter who's in college and living on her own. I also have a 17 year old son who is just starting to show signs of independence. I'm familiar with the idea that eventually children leave the home to strike out on their own. It is also my sincere wish that both of them exceed my accomplishments by what ever metric you wish to apply. As a parent I can see that. I also recognized, in both of them, the point at which they were to be allowed to start making their own decisions because they had reached a level of maturity, in my judgment, that allowed them to do so. The specific age they reached this level differed in each, as you can imagine, but it becomes fairly obvious to a parent (I would hope).

Having given a little background on myself, as a parent, I submit that it could be possible that god is lying to the human race because we're too immature to know the truth. I don't truly believe this to be true, but again, it's for the sake of conversation. IF we suppose a god, and we give him the properties of a god, then we have to accept that he knows better then we do and from there accept that if there is a lie, regardless of how white, then there is a reason for the lie that we just don't have the ability to understand.

The question of "What if my parents had wanted to keep me young?" should be replaced with "What if my parents thought it to be in my best interest to keep me young?" From that perspective it becomes a judgment call. As humans it's fairly safe to say that we feel we have a right to know. From a deity's perspective, I can see the question, or the judgment, being much more difficult.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Some children aren't told that Santa Claus isn't real, they find out themselves. There is a way to prove that St. Nick did not visit a particular house on Christmas eve. It becomes much more difficult to prove that God doesn't exist (not pertinent to the conversation at hand, I mention it only to point out the difference between the two in the analogy.)

The evidence that St. Nick did not visit a particular house on Christmas eve doesn't prove the non-existence of St. Nick. It only proves that St. Nick did not visit that particular house on Christmas eve. Maybe he just forgot.

Non-existence can't be proven because any negative can't be proven. You can only make a statistical judgment of the probability of the positive being true (if it's not already proven to be true). And for both God and Santa Claus, the probability of their existence is so low, they're practically negligible. Hence we conclude that both of them probably don't exist.

I've been reading the rest of the discussion here. Very interesting. I'd like to see how much longer it can go on.

 

[Trons]

The evidence that St. Nick did not visit a particular house on Christmas eve doesn't prove the non-existence of St. Nick. It only proves that St. Nick did not visit that particular house on Christmas eve. Maybe he just forgot.

Very true, however, I thought we were discussing a single family unit, and a subset of that family unit (the child) discovering, emphatically, that Santa doesn't exist (for that household). If you are taught to believe in Santa and you get up while your parents are setting the presents under the tree, then you can conclude that the Santa you were taught to believe in doesn't exist. It would be possible to assume that some semblance of that aforementioned Santa does exist but, as you state, the probability is very low.

Non-existence can't be proven because any negative can't be proven. You can only make a statistical judgment of the probability of the positive being true (if it's not already proven to be true). And for both God and Santa Claus, the probability of their existence is so low, they're practically negligible. Hence we conclude that both of them probably don't exist.

I've been reading the rest of the discussion here. Very interesting. I'd like to see how much longer it can go on.

Comparing the existence of God to the existence of Santa is puerile. Santa is a known lie. I dare say that the majority of parents who teach their children about god honestly believe that the god exists. It is a fairly easy experiment to provide proof that Santa doesn't exist in any single household (with the exception I provided above in which it's assumed that Santa is a minor deity.)

Now, take your analogy a bit further, as I've previously done, and remove the concept of a theistic deity. Insert an advanced alien raceb as has been done in several works of fiction, to include, but not to list in it's entirety, Star Trek (see 1st contact), and the Star Gate Universe (in it's entirety). From that perspective, it's easy to see how an advanced life form may not feel that humans are mature enough to know the whole truth about the existence of certain things about our universe (to include the concept of a theistic god) but are, instead, kept in the dark, awaiting the level a maturity required, by whatever metric the advanced civilization uses, to be introduced to certain truths. Following that transposition of belief structures, it may make understanding he theistic faith system a little more understandable.

 

[Noth]

While I understand the position your coming from, it is based on a few assumptions that I feel should be expressed succinctly.

A) The God/Santa or God/parent analogy is even close to accurate, and;
B) If we suppose the existence of a god, he's lying to us for any reason, to any degree.

Just to clarify, 'cause maybe I wasn't clear enough, I conceded the flaws in the analogy in my post and I based 'god lying to us' from your post as a conversation piece. I'm a little hesitant to dig too deep into the possibilities of lying deities since I think it might derail to a discussion on infallibility and our favourite omnipotence - omniscience conundrum. This might then lead to you (if I read you correctly) pointing out that an omniscient god might have good reasons for not informing us better and me standing by the view that something like 'we aren't meant to know' is a pillow to choke ones thirst for knowledge.

But, of course, it might turn out completely differently

A) I think the god/parent analogy is closer to the normal view point of theists. I leave my personal theistic faith out of the equation for this, conversation. Let's try to establish, agree on and discuss, a common idea for how a "normal" theist would view god. If asked specific questions about my personal faith structure, I'll be more then happy to answer, however I don't think it's important to the discussion at hand.

I believe the parent analogy is more accurate based on common perception of god because I've heard so many Christians say "God, the Father." I also think a lot of the wonder that people feel towards god is much more akin to a child asking a parent a question and being surprised the parent knows the answer...blah blah blah. Using this analogy, it would be safer, I feel, to use the demanding obedience type of parent then the let's reason with a small child type of parent. This also fits more with most christian dogmas of "do as God says or burn in Hell." Agreeing to this analogy of god, helps us move forward with the idea that if there is a god, he's going to be the type of parent that knows far more about the dangers of the world (universe?) then we do and therefore when he tells us to do something, it might not be a bad idea, even if we don't understand why.

I guess it is precisely the christian dogmas of hell that make me cringe as soon as a father/ child analogy is used to explain their god's love to me. It is this very analogy that I use to explain to people why I think a concept such as hell has to be fictional or completely misrepresented by those preaching it or it would fly in the face of the love their god is supposed to have for them.

Commenting more clearly on your example I would say that if we use the bible as the word of god I would have to note he doesn't have a very good track record of warning us about the dangers of the universe :lol:. Any other communication from father to child would be personal and, as a consequence, subject to claims of mental instability on the child's part
Over time, and especially the last, say, few hundred years we've learned much about life, the universe and everything. We no longer attribute unknowns to a god per sé.
I would wonder, if suddenly this god would reveal himself to the world and tell us to do something without explaining (foregoing the possibility that time is too imminent for him to have time to explain), how beneficial would it be if he did explain himself?

This leads us into B). Following the above supposition about the existence of god, we can wonder as to whether he's lying to us or trying to protect us from some unseen danger. Since we've covered the concept of unseen danger, let's go with the idea that he may be lying. I agree with the idea that at some point the child needs to break out on his own. I have a 19 year old (almost 20) daughter who's in college and living on her own. I also have a 17 year old son who is just starting to show signs of independence. I'm familiar with the idea that eventually children leave the home to strike out on their own. It is also my sincere wish that both of them exceed my accomplishments by what ever metric you wish to apply. As a parent I can see that. I also recognized, in both of them, the point at which they were to be allowed to start making their own decisions because they had reached a level of maturity, in my judgement, that allowed them to do so. The specific age they reached this level differed in each, as you can imagine, but it becomes fairly obvious to a parent (I would hope).

Having given a little background on myself, as a parent, I submit that it could be possible that god is lying to the human race because we're too immature to know the truth. I don't truly believe this to be true, but again, it's for the sake of conversation. IF we suppose a god, and we give him the properties of a god, then we have to accept that he knows better then we do and from there accept that if there is a lie, regardless of how white, then there is a reason for the lie that we just don't have the ability to understand.

In a proper discussion I would point out here that historical gods differ in terms of properties and what they knew and didn't. Even the biblical god has shown to be (at least partially) ignorant, or at least feigned that he was.
When I was still a christian I used to marvel at the possibility that our brain simply couldn't encompass god's wisdom. Now I feel that we sometimes don't give ourselves enough credit. Granted, we might eventually evolve to be smarter still, but when working at the intellectual heights the brain is capable of some impressive feats. Coming back to my earlier point, the moment a deity comes into play about which my fellow humans say he has super duper smarts and I cannot possible fathom... etc. I feel my brain rebel. Even if a deity were to turn out to be real I would still question, I would still seek to learn more and I would wonder how much that deity actually knew/ whether his interests coincide with mine etc etc.
Should I get the feeling he's lying to me I will not be satisfied by being told 'you simply don't have the ability to understand', even if the god himself states this.

The question of "What if my parents had wanted to keep me young?" should be replaced with "What if my parents thought it to be in my best interest to keep me young?" From that perspective it becomes a judgement call. As humans it's fairly safe to say that we feel we have a right to know. From a deity's perspective, I can see the question, or the judgement, being much more difficult.

The difference being we know from experience that there comes a point where you simply shouldn't keep a child young any more and allow him to grow mature. The 'best interest' is still judged from the perspective of the parents, however. We know parents aren't entirely infallible.
Seeing as how this is a conversation rather than a discussion I won't resort to going on about how I feel the infallibility of a deity is incompatible with the sorrow in the world and the sheer destruction everywhere in the universe, nor with the "design flaws" in certain species etc etc. For now let's allow a measure of infallibility.

We allow our children to grow up and, often, enjoy them growing older, getting their own family and experiencing life and happiness. We let them go and ask them, perhaps, to not be a stranger. Some people visit their parents once a month at least, others (including myself) can live my life entirely separate from them barring the occasional skype call . (Don't mistake that with not loving them though). For better or for worse my parents have accepted me leaving them and going my own way in many things, faith included.
The love is (extreme circumstances aside) unconditional still.

If this god were to lie to us and would have to make a judgement call about whether to allow us to grow up he's not doing us justice. You mentioned that your child could come back at a later time to ask for clarification, but a lying deity wouldn't explain himself if he had already made the judgement call that we weren't ready to know/ we were unworthy of the knowledge/ we were incapable of understanding the reasons why.
A scene from the Matrix comes to mind where the antagonist from part one is in conversation with agent Smith and responds to the question "why do you want to go back into the Matrix?" with "ignorance... is bliss".
Sometimes the truth is ugly, but 'seek and you shall find' feels like a good biblical argument for being rewarded for your thirst for knowledge, however bleak the knowledge may seem. I would prefer it still over the lie.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

If you are taught to believe in Santa and you get up while your parents are setting the presents under the tree, then you can conclude that the Santa you were taught to believe in doesn't exist.

Then my conclusion would be very wrong. Because the fact that my parents are setting up the presents could rightfully bring me to the conclusion that they were lying to me about Santa. However, it does not prove anything about Santa's existence (or non-existence).

Santa is a known lie. I dare say that the majority of parents who teach their children about god honestly believe that the god exists.

It doesn't matter whether only children believe in a fabricated claim, or everybody believes in a fabricated claim. Such a claim is just that - fabricated. Also, your "proof of Santa's non-existence" is not exactly proof for anything because it can be interpreted in any other way.

It seems that you missed my point that non-existence of something cannot be proven. Can you prove that a gnome doesn't exist on your bed? If you say you can't see one, I can say it's invisible. If you say you can't feel one, I can say it's immaterial. If you say you can't hear one, I can say you can only hear the gnome if you believe in its existence. For whatever "proof" you produce for the non-existence of the gnome, I can provide you with a counter-claim.

On the other case, if I say there's no pillow on your bed (assuming there's actually a pillow there), you can prove that there is one by testing its material existence. You can say, "Don't you see? Can't you feel? Let me slap my hand on the pillow. Can't you hear it?" and I have to accept the existence of pillow because it's proven via the evidence. If I still claim it doesn't exist, either I'm crazy or I'm lying.

 

[Noth]

It seems that you missed my point that non-existence of something cannot be proven. Can you prove that a gnome doesn't exist on your bed? If you say you can't see one, I can say it's invisible. If you say you can't feel one, I can say it's immaterial. If you say you can't hear one, I can say you can only hear the gnome if you believe in its existence. For whatever "proof" you produce for the non-existence of the gnome, I can provide you with a counter-claim.

On the other case, if I say there's no pillow on your bed (assuming there's actually a pillow there), you can prove that there is one by testing its material existence. You can say, "Don't you see? Can't you feel? Let me slap my hand on the pillow. Can't you hear it?" and I have to accept the existence of pillow because it's proven via the evidence. If I still claim it doesn't exist, either I'm crazy or I'm lying.

The way to prove a non-existence is through paradox or double negatives.

Paradox: I can prove there are no married bachelors. Married people are by definition not bachelors.

Double negative: There is not not a pillow on my bed. (sketchy, not clear on whether it's proving a non-existence)

Beyond those, which I think are both irrelevant in reasonable argument, I think the "disprove the dragon in my garage" should be mainly used against claims of "prove my god does not exist".

 

[Trons]

Okay, There has been a lot posted since I've had an opportunity to respond. I will try to respond to what I feel I should respond to. If you feel like I left something out that you'd like a specific reply to, please feel free to let me know and I'll make sure I respond when I can.

I'm also trying to differentiate between where we're discussing the theoretical discussion and where my personal faith should respond. I tend to lean towards the topic at hand without my personal bias. If you would prefer a more personal response, please let me know. I'll be more then happy to provide my personal views if asked.

Noth:

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the time you've put into your response. It's very well thought out and the fact that you took the time to put that much time into a response to me, honestly, is flattering. I also appreciate how you make the distinction between how you are responding to me based on a friendly conversation opposed to a "proper discussion."

Just to clarify, 'cause maybe I wasn't clear enough, I conceded the flaws in the analogy in my post and I based 'god lying to us' from your post as a conversation piece. I'm a little hesitant to dig too deep into the possibilities of lying deities since I think it might derail to a discussion on infallibility and our favourite omnipotence - omniscience conundrum. This might then lead to you (if I read you correctly) pointing out that an omniscient god might have good reasons for not informing us better and me standing by the view that something like 'we aren't meant to know' is a pillow to choke ones thirst for knowledge.

But, of course, it might turn out completely differently

I recognize that you had conceded the flaws in the analogy. I respond mainly to keep the conversation going and because I feel it's an interesting conversation. Mainly because these types of conversations tend to test my own ideas, and I'm never against that. I also agree that if we were to go into the idea of a lying (even a lie of omission) deity, the conversation would soon resort to less, then I believe, either of us want it to be. If for no other reason then I can provide no proof for my personal faith and therefore I would have to resort to "You don't know so nanabobo." Since I hate that position and would prefer to avoid having to use that stance, let's leave that particular topic by the way side.

I will agree with you on your idea that IF (from your perspective I use the word if) there were a god doing that, it would "choke ones thirst for knowledge."

I guess it is precisely the christian dogmas of hell that make me cringe as soon as a father/ child analogy is used to explain their god's love to me. It is this very analogy that I use to explain to people why I think a concept such as hell has to be fictional or completely misrepresented by those preaching it or it would fly in the face of the love their god is supposed to have for them.

Commenting more clearly on your example I would say that if we use the bible as the word of god I would have to note he doesn't have a very good track record of warning us about the dangers of the universe :lol:. Any other communication from father to child would be personal and, as a consequence, subject to claims of mental instability on the child's part
Over time, and especially the last, say, few hundred years we've learned much about life, the universe and everything. We no longer attribute unknowns to a god per sé.
I would wonder, if suddenly this god would reveal himself to the world and tell us to do something without explaining (foregoing the possibility that time is too imminent for him to have time to explain), how beneficial would it be if he did explain himself?

I will agree whole heartedly with the idea that the concept of hell is completely misrepresented by those preaching it. It's been a long time since I've done any serious biblical study, but I do not remember any specific passage that mentions hell. The closest I can recall, from the top of my head, is "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23, if I remember correctly. Since that passage specifically mentions the cost of sin, and it doesn't mention hell, I think it's safe to assume that the bible had something else in mind. I am not looking for a specific conversation on bible passages and how they may be wrong. Again, I'm way out of practice. I only mention this passage to support your view.

I don't see how communication from father to child would be personal, and as a consequence, subject to claims of mental instability on the child's part. I would like you to explain that a little more specifically before I comment on that. As a father, I believe that communication with my child, is as a general rule, personal, but doesn't mean my children are mentally unstable, it just means that I feel I have more knowledge and experience then them at this time. I may have misunderstood that portion of that analogy, and if I did, I apologize, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

I agree, again, with your idea that it is far more beneficial for anybody, who is offering direction to anybody, to take the time to explain the reason for that direction. Having said that, I have been in the military and I'm a father, and I hold a leadership position in my current career. From my perspective, I am much more likely to accept that sometimes people are going to be told to do something, and the person doing the telling will not have the luxury of explain why it's important. I'm comfortable with that position, given my past. Having stated that, I will say that, other then some over all generally good ideas in the bible, I do not think I've ever been ordered to do anything by god.
The rest of your post seems to deal specifically with the father/son, god/people analogy. I will, in response, answer in a very general way and if you'd like something more specific, please feel free to ask.

I agree, we should let our children grow up. I also believe that there comes a time when we may not be able to stop them. I also believe, as a parent, that when it's time for my children to grow up is a judgment call that I alone (with the help of my wife) have to make. This is not a call I would allow a complete stranger to make because they do not know my children, what my children have been taught, and how my children have reacted in various circumstances.

As a 17 year old, I thought I knew it all. As I got older, I realized how smart my parents were (parents will be defined in a moment). I was very lucky with parents who allowed me to make mistakes to learn from and were able to keep me out of serious trouble.

I will take a moment to say that I feel I was very lucky to have, for most of my impressionable years, 2 sets of parents. On set included my mom and step father, one set included my best friends parents, whom I had known for years at that point and were, for all intents and purposes, mom and dad. As a person, I am very intimately aware of the fallibility of a parent.

Anon:

I disagree with you. If somebody teaches you that Santa comes every Christmas eve and specifically puts your presents under the tree, and you get up one year to find that your parents are putting the presents under the tree, you can conclude that Santa, as you've been taught to believe, does not exist. Could that conclusion be wrong. Yes, it's possible. As I stated, there could be a different interpretation of Santa, that would still work regardless of the evidence you've been provided. Does that mean you have no right to make that conclusion? Of course not. From what I understand, all conclusions are based on the observable evidence at hand. If provided future evidence against the conclusion, then yes, the conclusion can be proved false, but that doesn't stop the observer from making the conclusion.

Again, if I tell you Santa brings the presents every year, and you catch somebody else bringing the presents, in my mind, you've proved the non-existence of Santa. If the concept of Santa is changed at a later time to include the concept that he personally doesn't bring the presents, then that's something that has to be dealt with at that time.

IF you were to confront you parents with the non-existence of Santa, and they then explained that Santa still existed, but wasn't able to stop by your home that year and so sent the presents to them to place, or...pick your premise to continue the existence of Santa, then yes, you could not prove them wrong. Since that concept differs from the common representation of Santa as I know it, I am hesitant to continue a conversation where we make those types of claims.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Again, if I tell you Santa brings the presents every year, and you catch somebody else bringing the presents, in my mind, you've proved the non-existence of Santa.

By your logic, I can say if I tell you that god answers prayers, and one day you pray and you find that your prayer is not answered, in my mind, you've proved the non-existence of god.

Oh wait, but then I could say, god does answer prayers, it's just that his answer is either yes, no or later. And it's later in your case. Just be patient. At least that's part of the "common representation of god" isn't it?

Edit: You do have the right to make your own conclusions. But if the conclusions are wrong, they may not represent reality. Only your imagination. If you find your parents putting presents and conclude that Santa doesn't exist, your conclusion is wrong because it's your imagination that Santa doesn't exist. And this imagination is fueled solely by the observance that you didn't see him bringing presents (rather you saw your parents instead). Whether that represents the reality of his existence or not depends on whether you go on an expedition of the universe searching for Santa and not finding him at all (or just calculating his probability of existence based on current knowledge).

In short, A doesn't always lead to B even if you think it does. You have to check whether the link between A and B actually exists rather than imagining the link.

 

[Trons]

By your logic, I can say if I tell you that god answers prayers, and one day you pray and you find that your prayer is not answered, in my mind, you've proved the non-existence of god.

Oh wait, but then I could say, god does answer prayers, it's just that his answer is either yes, no or later. And it's later in your case. Just be patient. At least that's part of the "common representation of god" isn't it?

I find this specifically antagonizing. I'm talking about a quantifiable, and repeatable observation, and you're talking about something that can be attributed to a lot of different things. I submit, based on your statement about prayer being an observable, and repeatable, proof of god:

A) To many unrepeatable variables, no good control. As a theist, I could say that every time I pray one of your outcomes could be possible, but that would be based on faith, not on evidence.
B) Even if you heard me pray, and the prayer came true, there would be no way of proving, repeatably, that I didn't have prior knowledge of what I prayed for.
C) You are projecting the "common representation of god" to me. I would have thought, through previous posts, I am not here to represent god, and even if I was, it wouldn't be a common representation.

I will say that I recognize your assumptions based on previous experience and why you would feel that I may represent that view point. Personally, I would appreciate it if you treated me like an individual.