The Santalogical Argument
- Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
- An actual gift giver is by definition greater than an imaginary gift giver.
- If an actual gift giver is greater than an imaginary one, then the greatest gift giver must be an actual one and not imaginary.
- But (per premise 1) no gift giver can be conceptually greater than Santa Claus.
- Therefore, Santa Claus exists.
The Christmasological Argument
- Either the universe had a beginning or has always existed.
- Both science and logic entail the universe had a beginning.
- Therefore the universe had a beginning.
- Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
- Therefore the universe had a cause.
- Every cause must be either personal or mechanical.
- But every mechanical cause is by definition a part of the universe, and therefore no mechanical cause can have preceded the universe to cause it.
- Therefore the universe must have had a personal cause.
- Creating the universe is the greatest gift conceivable.
- The greatest gift conceivable can only have been given by the greatest gift giver conceivable.
- Santa Claus is by definition the greatest gift giver conceivable.
- Therefore, Santa Claus caused the universe to exist.
- Therefore, Santa Claus exists.
The Fine Gifting Argument
- The laws and constants of the universe are finely tuned to require the installation of vents, chimneys, and shafts in all households in which people live (due to the laws of thermodynamics and chemical respiration).
- It is extraordinarily improbable that those laws and constants would be arranged in precisely the way that would require exactly what Santa Claus needs to enter our homes and deliver His gifts or coals.
- It is very probable that if Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe that He would arrange them in exactly that way, which (lo and behold) is the way they actually are.
- Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus arranged the laws and constants of the universe than that random chance did.
- Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus exists.
- Therefore Santa Claus exists.
Argument from Christmas Miracles
- Miraculous events have been documented to occur at and around Christmas (by multiple eyewitnesses and even mechanical recording devices that never lie, like TV cameras).
- It is extraordinarily improbable that those miracles occur just by chance.
- It is very probable that they would occur if Santa Claus caused them.
- Therefore it is far more probable that Santa Claus caused them than that random chance did.
- Therefore it is very probable that Santa Claus exists.
- Therefore Santa Claus exists.
Hopefully, if you are familiar with theistic arguments you will understand the humor in the above proofs. Have a Merry Christmas and, don't forget, Santa Claus loves you!
8 Comments:
Hey, dude, let's git past alla the wily, hypocritical BS on religion, and focus on how long our weee existence is. 88ish years?? Q: What the #@!! happens after that if our souls are indelible which they are? A: We rise to face our General Judgment by Jesus --- I was called by God to make NINE, avant-garde-efficacious blogs BECAUSE of the experiences I've had in my sinFULL life. All I want you to do is read'm. God blessa youse -Fr. Sarducci, ol SNL
Link?
I see you've given Santa Claus the properties of a non-contingent being, in which case you've proven God exists! Let your path to theism follow.
http://ehrmanproject.com/
One more thing, you still have as of yet to post anything from a serious philosopher of religion or that critiques their work. Glad to see that this sort of sophomoric and amateurish thinking is all you can dish out! Feel free to join our discussion at uncommondescent.com. You wouldn't last a day! Sad, really that you would base your life on such tripe.
These arguments are invalid for the same reason the theistic ones are. Now the main reason that I haven't posted anything that you would consider "serious philosophy" is that most of my readers aren't aware of what people like Craig and Plantinga are spouting and probably don't care. I know my audience pretty well and I'm fairly certain that if I started a rebuttal of something like the ontological argument, they couldn't hit the back button fast enough.
But I don't think you care about any of that. You came to promote your websites, call me an idiot, and walk away. So consider me unfazed.
I didn't call you an idiot, I just think that perhaps you should think harder about the topic. If it's really that easy, then I doubt there would be much discussion about it. You're really just perpetuating propaganda and rhetoric. Which either you know it is(in which case you're intellectually dishonest) or you don't (in which case you should try to find out). I hope your readership knows the difference.
Propaganda: "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position"
Rhetoric: "the ability to use language effectively"
Should I be flattered? What about either of these things do you consider dishonest or ignorant? By themselves, they are neutral.
I have thought hard about these things. Hard enough that I lost my faith over them. If I have a position I'm trying to convince someone of, I present facts, not bible verses, wishful thinking, or appeals to consequences as so many religious people do. If you want to believe that the above arguments actually prove God's existence, that's your right, but I won't say you're not wrong.
If you want to have a discussion about the so-called 'proofs' of a god's existence then we might be able to, but I think even you must realize that nobody believes in a god because of these anyway.
"Santa Claus Arguments" are ignorant propoganda. You are using them to share misinformation with a community. The Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments are used to defend the existence of a non-contingent, pre-existent, etc. being. Santa Clause isn't such a "being" to my knowledge. So, you have a confusion of category.
If you are giving him those properties, then you are arguing for the existence of a being which I whole-heartedly agree exists. After all, ex nihilo nihil fit. The question is then whether or not it is Santa, the Tooth-Fairy, a Celestial Teapot, Buddha, Allah, or whatever.
I agree with you that nobody believes in a god solely due to arguments. Nobody disbelieves in a god solely due to arguments either.
I wouldn't say the above arguments prove the existence of a god (I'm not sure who's claiming that, really), but I would defend that they make it more plausible than his non-existence. And I'm not really interested in arguing them with you, and not due to intimidation. But rather, because they have all been and are being argued in much more sophisticated ways that either you or I could put forth.
Actually neither the Cosmological nor the Teleological arguments assume non-contingency and the Ontological argument I suppose would argue for non-contingency (though through exceedingly poor form). However, the Christian god need not be non-contingent an only pre-existent in that he existed "before" the universe came into being (if the latter statement can in fact be sensical). Despite all, please realize that this blog entry was only a joke. A stab at the absurdity of theistic arguments.
None of the real arguments are valid and thus none provide any evidence of a god. To rebut them in order of parodied appearance, since you seem to think they carry some kind of weight:
1) Tautology (and existence is not a property)
2) A misunderstanding of scientific theory (it doesn't say we came from nothing, nor can nothing actually be a valid state)
3) Complexity does not imply design does not imply a god
4) Argument from ignorance
Personally, I think that arguments against (the Christian) God's existence are more convincing and actually do lead to deconversions. Problems such as "The Argument from Unnecessary Suffering," "The Argument from Non-Belief," and the general historical and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible ("Argument from Non-Infallibility") are much more effective. But if you think the arguments are too sophisticated to touch then perhaps you shouldn't be making claims about their veracity, eh?
Post a Comment