Does Santa exist?

[EverChanging]

So Santa was made up which means God was made up?

Basically, yes. (Although I wouldn't say that the myth of Santa means God is a myth -- I'm making a comparison. The Santa myth is a legend that has grown with time with some historical roots.) The experience of mystery, ineffability, of transcendence, is not made up. The myths and stories we create to express this are made up -- they come from human experience and imagination. God myths are a part of this. Sometimes these myths express a dark side of human experience. Sometimes transcendence can be terrifying, too. But even darker myths can express profound truths.

I am a part of a Christian meditation group. One of the reflections we listened to mentioned that as we let go in meditation, we must also eventually let go of all of our ideas of God as well. Our words about God point to something that can never be truly put into words. All of our concepts of God, though helpful (or not) are ultimately myths. They are not the truth they point to. To mistake them for the truth they point to is to commit idolatry.

God, as a way of describing mystery and transcendence, is not something to attribute limited human attributes, including existence or non-existence.

 

[fantome profane]

I think it is the media that brought santa to life

media is a powerful outlet... so powerful in fact that it has made santa real to many 'children' (im pretty sure no adults believe in him)

This is good, so a powerful organization dedicated to spreading the idea of Santa is enough to make you sceptical of his existence. While this is not really evidence that he doesn’t exist it is good reason to be sceptical, I agree.

It was in the 1870s when the figure of Santa Claus first appeared in Britain,It was around that time that Charles Dickens published a story called 'A Christmas Carol'... it was the story of Scrooge. It all grew from one work of fiction....with more and more works of fiction the christmas tradition of giving was born and the man who did all the giving was santa.

Actually Santa does not appear in A Christmas Carol, nor in any other works by Dickens that I am aware of (though I could be mistaken).

But again simply pointing out that the idea of Santa can be traced to a temporal beginning does not mean it is not true.

there is no comparison to the bible and to God though... not for me anyway.

Honestly I am not trying to make an argument that “God” does not exist. And really it is not my intention to compare “God” to “Santa”. It is however my intention to compare the arguments for “God” to the arguments for “Santa” (or against). I hope you can see the distinction there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was in the 1870s when the figure of Santa Claus first appeared in Britain,It was around that time that Charles Dickens published a story called 'A Christmas Carol'... it was the story of Scrooge. It all grew from one work of fiction....with more and more works of fiction the christmas tradition of giving was born and the man who did all the giving was santa.

there is no comparison to the bible and to God though... not for me anyway.

Actually, Father Christmas dates back at least centuries in Britain, and Sinterklaas is thought to have connections to pagan belief:

Father Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sinterklaas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that the modern version of Santa Claus is a new adaptation of a very old tradition.

BTW - you mentioned the 1870s for the birth of the modern version of Santa... isn't that the same decade that the Jehova's Witnesses (or the "Bible Students", as it was then known) came into being as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually Santa does not appear in A Christmas Carol, nor in any other works by Dickens that I am aware of (though I could be mistaken).

A Christmas Carol doesn't explicitly refer to Santa Claus, though now that I think about it, the Ghost of Christmas Present does share a fair number of similarities with the Victorian conception of Father Christmas... maybe the connection was intentional.

 

[Dan4reason]

a valid viewpoint to what?

He is valid because the belief in him has done much good in the world.

 

[Pegg]

Actually, Father Christmas dates back at least centuries in Britain, and Sinterklaas is thought to have connections to pagan belief:

Father Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sinterklaas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears that the modern version of Santa Claus is a new adaptation of a very old tradition.

BTW - you mentioned the 1870s for the birth of the modern version of Santa... isn't that the same decade that the Jehova's Witnesses (or the "Bible Students", as it was then known) came into being as well?

im sure he goes back even further the that because the character we call santa existed in pagan religions ... the king of saturnalia was probably the original 'santa'


and yes it was 1879 that Brother Russell put out the first publication of the Watchtower magazine.

 

[Pegg]

He is valid because the belief in him has done much good in the world.

he's done nothing good

he doesnt exist.

 

[Dan4reason]

he's done nothing good

he doesnt exist.

That is a faith statement. You have no proof that Santa doesn't exist. Santa has given presents to millions of children every year, and has encouraged little boys and girls to be good every year.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually, Father Christmas dates back at least centuries in Britain, and Sinterklaas is thought to have connections to pagan belief:
It appears that the modern version of Santa Claus is a new adaptation of a very old tradition.

'New' adaptation of a very 'old' tradition if connected to worship is religious syncretism. So the result is the 'new' can not be reconciled with the 'old'
because incompatible foreign ideas [Santa] are introduced and added to the existing established old belief system [Christ].
So the 'new' religion takes on a life of its own because the new never got rid of the old but just blended into the evolving traditions that change with the whims of mankind. When those 'new' ideas become embedded in people's minds they are very hard to erase and to have people go back to the old.
The 'old' in this case being the teachings of first-century Christianity

How can one use the 'new' or modern concept of a Santa in order to play 'Babes in Toyland' [even sometimes giving war toys that glorify killing] pay homage to God or his Christ?

 

[Pegg]

That is a faith statement. You have no proof that Santa doesn't exist. Santa has given presents to millions of children every year, and has encouraged little boys and girls to be good every year.

i have evidence that the mums and dads of the world would disagree with you on that one ...and the shopping retailers

 

[1AOA1]

That is a faith statement. You have no proof that Santa doesn't exist. Santa has given presents to millions of children every year, and has encouraged little boys and girls to be good every year.

But faith is for everything we can't directly perceive. So everything imperceivable is automatically compared to Santa?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

im sure he goes back even further the that because the character we call santa existed in pagan religions ... the king of saturnalia was probably the original 'santa'


and yes it was 1879 that Brother Russell put out the first publication of the Watchtower magazine.

So... if it's a mark against the Santa Claus myth that he's a relatively recent version of an ancient religious tradition, is this also a mark against the beliefs that the Watchtower Society espouses (i.e. a just-as-recent version of an ancient religious tradition)?

But faith is for everything we can't directly perceive. So everything imperceivable is automatically compared to Santa?

A good quick test for the validity of a position is to see whether it gives the same treatment to different things that have the same qualities. If a person who believes in God but not Santa Claus is logically consistent, then he'll be able to explain how the qualities of the two are different.

 

[Dan4reason]

But faith is for everything we can't directly perceive. So everything imperceivable is automatically compared to Santa?

Faith is not about things we don't perceive, its about things we have little to no good evidence for. I have never directly perceived the evolution of life yet I believe it because of the evidence. There is more to evidence than what we directly perceive.

Santa is being compared to religions because we do not have very good evidence to support his existence, like many religions but that does not mean he does not exist. I will prove to you that my faith is not irrational.

You see, my belief in Santa's existence is just as irrational as my belief in you. What objective evidence do I have to prove you exist?

 

[Dan4reason]

i have evidence that the mums and dads of the world would disagree with you on that one ...and the shopping retailers

I am not saying all presents come from Santa, only some of them. Only very few boys and girls are truly good and even when many are good, Santa does not give so much to them because they already have plenty of presents from their parents.

 

[EverChanging]

'New' adaptation of a very 'old' tradition if connected to worship is religious syncretism. So the result is the 'new' can not be reconciled with the 'old'
because incompatible foreign ideas [Santa] are introduced and added to the existing established old belief system [Christ].
So the 'new' religion takes on a life of its own because the new never got rid of the old but just blended into the evolving traditions that change with the whims of mankind. When those 'new' ideas become embedded in people's minds they are very hard to erase and to have people go back to the old.
The 'old' in this case being the teachings of first-century Christianity

Yeah, it's called change, and it's always happening. Modern day fundamentalists (and other groups like Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other supposed restorations) are by no means first-century Christians and never will be. They are a modern variation of Christianity.

 

[1AOA1]

Faith is not about things we don't perceive, its about things we have little to no good evidence for. I have never directly perceived the evolution of life yet I believe it because of the evidence. There is more to evidence than what we directly perceive.

Santa is being compared to religions because we do not have very good evidence to support his existence, like many religions but that does not mean he does not exist. I will prove to you that my faith is not irrational.

You see, my belief in Santa's existence is just as irrational as my belief in you. What objective evidence do I have to prove you exist?

But even if I have evidence for the sun, if I have never been to outer space and directly saw it, its a matter of faith right? You have evidence that I exist, but you have faith in my existence because you cannot directly perceive me. So I'm automatically like Santa?

 

[Dan4reason]

But even if I have evidence for the sun, if I have never been to outer space and directly saw it, its a matter of faith right? You have evidence that I exist, but you have faith in my existence because you cannot directly perceive me. So I'm automatically like Santa?

Yes you are automatically like Santa in that respect. Just as I have no observable evidence that you exist, I also have no observable evidence that Santa exists. Don't you see, you and Santa are the same case. If I were to accept your existence, I would seriously have to address why I am not accepting Santa's existence.

Believing in the sun is not a matter of faith because I SEE it, I get sunburned by it, I get warmed by it.

 

[1AOA1]

Yes you are automatically like Santa in that respect. Just as I have no observable evidence that you exist, I also have no observable evidence that Santa exists. Don't you see, you and Santa are the same case. If I were to accept your existence, I would seriously have to address why I am not accepting Santa's existence.

So as long as you cannot see something, you cat' it with Santa?

Believing in the sun is not a matter of faith because I SEE it, I get sunburned by it, I get warmed by it.

But you see a light above. Can I say you get warmed and burnt by the rays from Santa's tanning Salon?

 

[Pegg]

So... if it's a mark against the Santa Claus myth that he's a relatively recent version of an ancient religious tradition, is this also a mark against the beliefs that the Watchtower Society espouses (i.e. a just-as-recent version of an ancient religious tradition)?

haha i knew it was leading to that

but i can tell you, no. The reason I can tell you no is because christianity is not a myth. The watchtower society like any other christian denomination did not 'invent' christianity. And the WT is not a new version of christianity. Christianity as written in the NT has been the same since it was first penned....its written in there for all to see and if we fashion our beliefs and methods in the same way then we are not creating a new version.

i understand that there are many varying beliefs among Christians but that's not because there are different versions of the bible, its because those beliefs are not based on the bible and that is why there are differences.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Santa is real, my mummy told me so and i've met him, i even got my photograph taken with him.