DreamSlayer said:The North American version of "Santa" can be disproved, not only by disproving "flying reindeer"
There are several characteristics that are common knowledge.
1 - He lives at the North Pole. This point can be disproved.
2 - He fits down peoples chimneys. This point can be disproved.
3 - He flies around the world in one night. This point can be disproved.
All of these can be disproved with radar, and satelite, and video taping your fireplace on Christmas.
Yeah, that was what I was saying, some versions can be disproved in this manner.
But then we wouldn't be talking about the same person. In fact if a man named Santa lived in New Mexico, that would not mean I did not disprove the Santa you were refering to.
The specific North American Version of Santa - Does not Exist. That's a fact that can be proven.
Yeah, they'd be different from the disproved Santas in a way that makes it possible for them to exist.
I don't understand what that means exactly. If there is proof, how do you get around it? Absolute "Proof" would mean that a specific "God" did not exist, plain and simple.
The diehard believers would get around it by saying that they didn't believe in the version you just disproved, but that they really believe in another version that is different enough from the disproved version to make it not be covered by the disproof. They could do this by claiming Santa used magic. Of course, what's wrong with doing this is that they give no evidence for the magic.
There are not an infinite number of possible Santas, his characteristics are limitted to our finite universe. The Characteristics of Santa have been recorded for us to look at and examine, and most have been proven untrue.
Oh right, I meant to say that there could be many possible versions that believers could choose from, especially with things they make up, like magic methods for Santa to get around limits. But those versions are no good because there's no evidence of such magic.
Most religions have the characteristics of their "God" recorded. Unfortunately, even some people when presented with the "Truth" refuse to listen. So even if you could prove or disprove "God" you would still have people believing the opposite.
Yeah, some people would still not listen.
The universe existing
Humans existing
Universal structure and order
Believers use this as proof for a "God"
People try to dismiss this evidence with mathematical impossibilities.
Is this where the law of parsimony comes into play?
I don't see how those three things imply any god. Thinking that such things require a designer if they seem too complex to have not been designed is an argument from ignorance. I don't know of how mathematical impossibilities is used to dismiss believers' claims about those things.
Yes, the law of parsimony comes in because those things can be described without invoking gods, like with the latest in science. The problem with assuming that a god is the original thing that existed and created everything is that one can ask what made the god and what made the god maker and so on. Since there is no evidence of god, it is simpiler to assume that the universe just exists.