No, this only proves that Santa Claus has to be supernatural, since if he were a natural man with natural reindeer, none of these things could be true. Therefore, he has to be supernatural, unlike the rest of us. That's why we tell tales of him.I would like to make a post regarding the existence of supernatural deities. When discussing the existence of God with theists, particularly Abrahamic monotheists, the point is often raised that it is not possible for me to "disprove" the existence of the God of the Bible or Qu'ran, etc. While this is true, it is still very easy to illustrate why belief in such entities is absurd due to the extreme unlikelihood of their existence. Let's use a simple illustration with Santa Claus. I would wager that most of us on this forum are in agreement that Santa Claus does not exist. But what is our evidence for the nonexistance of Santa Claus? For me, the answer is simple, but let's take a moment to provide some reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is highly improbable, essentially to the point of certainty: He violates the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for reindeer to fly, and it is also physically impossible for a single human being to visit every household in the world on a single night. Additionally, it is physically impossible for a single bag on a small sleigh to hold all of the presents (presumably millions, if not billions) that Santa will be providing to children around the world. At best, even a very large bag could hold only a few dozen small presents, yet those who affirm the existence of Santa Claus insist that a single bag could hold millions upon millions of wrapped presents. Finally, an obese man (or any adult human being) cannot descend a chimney. At best, he could get his lower calf down the chimney before being forced to retreat. Yet those who affirm the existence of Santa believe that Santa, in all of his extreme obesity, is able to descend a chimney that is likely only a foot or so in diameter. There are many other reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is extremely improbable, but, I think it is safe to state that I have provided enough that most reasonable people would concur that the evidence against Santa's existence is overwhelming.,
This is of course why they are considered gods in the first place.For the second portion of our illustration, I will be referring to the biblical god, with an emphasis on Jesus Christ in the New Testament. However, the same principles apply to Zeus, Allah, Horus, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., and the deities of any other religions which violate the laws of physics.
Hence, why it's considered a miracle...To start, we know that it is biologically impossible for a virgin to give birth, yet the New Testament claims that Mary violated this simple law of biology by giving birth without receiving sperm.
Are you saying there is no water in grapes?We know that it is physically impossible for water to be transformed into wine, since the chemical compositions of water and wine are distinct.
I live in the Northern regions of America. We drive our cars on top of lakes to go fishing. I'm quite familiar with it, and if you're not careful you can slip and fall and hurt yourself, especially as you get older. If you are talking about liquid water, then we do that too in the summer, behind boats on skis.Additionally, we know that it is physically impossible for a man (or any other organism larger than a small insect) to walk on the surface of water, yet the New Testament again claims that men were able to violate the laws of physics and walk on water.
Again, why it is considered supernatural. To call something supernatural means that it can't help naturally. This is not disproving the supernatural, but requiring it as a category of experience.Additionally, we know that a man cannot die, and be buried, and then physically come back to life days later. Yet believers in the biblical god hold to this as well, even though it is common knowledge that such an action is physically impossible, and that in any other context, a claim such as this would be dismissed without second thought.
Why do you suppose it's called supernatural then?These are just a few examples. In short, any deity that is alleged to perform miracles cannot exist in the same way that Santa Claus cannot exist, because "miracles" by definition are violations of the laws of physics, and hence, are physically impossible.
This is a different criteria than your arguments above. This is shifting the goalposts from an argument of logic to some sort of testing of claims. But you cited the stories as evidence against the supernatural, whereas as you can see it simply necessitates the supernatural as an explanation. Of course you can't rise from the dead naturally, therefore it must have been a supernatural event. Right?By the way, for those of you who swear that paranormal/supernatural events can take place, the James Randi foundation has a million dollar reward for you if you can demonstrate the existence of such a phenomenon. So far, no one has been able to claim this reward. It is doubtful that you will become the first.
If you're going to use logic arguments that the supernatural isn't real because it violates the natural, I'm not sure how this exactly does. I think those who wrote the stories understood that already.
Last edited: