Instigator / Con
7
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#2137
God and Santa
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please demonstrate how the two concepts are the same.
Believing in Santa Claus is likened to the belief in God.
How so?
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
The description of the debate will serve as the first round.
Disclaimer: I believe in a god outside of this debate, I am a Pagan and Taoist.
Both God and Santa give rewards to the 'good' and withhold rewards, even giving displeasurable hell/coal/curses to the 'wicked/evil'.
Both God and Santa have a dual situation whereby if we go strictly by scripture, both are scientifically disproven in many ways but if we become flexible about what they are and how they work, they can both plausibly be real.
Santa Claus is derived from Saint Niklaus which means even his morality is a Christian one that would match somewhat closesly to the Abrahamic God that the creator of this debate seems to be referring to.
Neither has physical evidence they are real.
I guess I'll stop there.
Round 2
Has Santa Claus been proven to be false according to it's claim?
So has God if the claims are held strictly down to scripture and folklore.
On the other hand, if we are flexible about what this magical entity is and how it works, no Santa hasn't been disproven he merely gives you presents via mind-controlling your parents to give better presents to children who aren't as naughty.
This doesn't mean I believe in Santa, I am offering a hypothesis as to how we could amend the scripture's provable flaws and take things metaphorically to then make the being capable of being real via other means. This is done for God plenty of times in Abrahamic religions.
Round 3
"So has God if the claims are held strictly down to scripture and folklore.
On the other hand, if we are flexible about what this magical entity is and how it works, no Santa hasn't been disproven he merely gives you presents via mind-controlling your parents to give better presents to children who aren't as naughty.
This doesn't mean I believe in Santa, I am offering a hypothesis as to how we could amend the scripture's provable flaws and take things metaphorically to then make the being capable of being real via other means. This is done for God plenty of times in Abrahamic religions."
So the claim about Santa is that he gives presents to children. How is this not disproven with the proof of parents actually doing it?
So the claim about Santa is that he gives presents to children. How is this not disproven with the proof of parents actually doing it?
In the same way that creationism has been disproven by evolution?
In the same way that Jesus making a blind man see is held under extreme skepticism by any sane scientist? How about the 7-days scenario of making the world? Or was it 6 days and the 7th was a day of rest?
Both Santa and God are scientifically invalid in their strictly interpreted forms, it is when we begin to metaphorically employ them as moral guidance figures that they indeed become viable and this is the key to understanding the intricate link between the nature of believing in God and in Santa. Neither has been 'seen' 'heard' etc.
Round 4
"In the same way that creationism has been disproven by evolution?
In the same way that Jesus making a blind man see is held under extreme skepticism by any sane scientist? How about the 7-days scenario of making the world? Or was it 6 days and the 7th was a day of rest?"
Ok , what WAY is that? This is not explaining anything. Has it not been proven that Santa Claus was made up ? This is according to the claim or story, now remember that.
"Both Santa and God are scientifically invalid in their strictly interpreted forms, it is when we begin to metaphorically employ them as moral guidance figures that they indeed become viable and this is the key to understanding the intricate link between the nature of believing in God and in Santa. Neither has been 'seen' 'heard' etc."
First off, according to the claim for God, science has nothing to do with it. God and science are two separate subjects altogether. You cannot build a scientific basis around God. You could try for Santa Claus but it's futile. Santa Claus is a famous fairy tale for children like Humpty Dumpty or little red Riding Hood. How do we know? We're aware of their authors and intent for giving imagination to children.
You can use whatever for your moral compass. Neither here nor there. God has not been proven OR DISPROVEN based on one part of the premise that is, being a spirit. Which is something impossible to empirically ascertain at the moment.
For Santa, well the premise is, he gives out gifts all over the world to children or their parents are doing it themselves. Now if you agree, that the parents are doing it, you're destroying that false equivalency made between the two things in this topic.
God and science are two different subjects only if Santa and science also are. God is claimed to be the original creator of the literal reality, sometimes said to have specifically made it all in a 7-step process with the Earth at the centre of it all, other times said to be almost an alien overlord of many demigods. Whichever God you believe in, it doesn't affect the fact that you need to make a scientific claim that God was the first entity to exist prior to all creation and that this entity is capable of anything and everything.
Santa is actually both less and more realistic than God at the same time. This is because he is more physically absurd in the claims of how he physically works but is more logically believable since God is said to create everything yet he didn't create himself. Santa and God both make no sense at an intial glance of the solid storyline they follow but if you put some specifics aside, both are moral guiders.
Look at this image:
thank you.
I'll pose this question to you and it's quite simple and direct. Has Santa been proven to be false according to the claim?
Improving your arguments and presentation thereof.
It'll help in what sir or ma'am?
This will help you a lot:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I lazily assumed the topic was a typo of God and Satan
As per the description, all pro needs to do is demonstrate that believing in Santa Claus is likened to the belief in God.
He came from DDO and that is why he uses the description as A1. However it is curious that he did not make any clear arguments.
A chickenshyte tactic.
He is probably waiving.
Mall's round 1 reiterates the description, but the description asks for "how" the one subject is likened to the other. I see no "how." Argument failure. Need a better argument than reiteration.