Atheists are more intelligent than Religious people

[barleycorn]

Cos I'm thinking- if climbing down all chimneys on Christmas Eve is a defining characteristic of Santa, then it would seem fairly easy to disprove his existence, empirically, by setting up some kind of scientific measuring devices on a portion of the worlds chimneys on Christmas Eve.

 

When he fails to appear for the chimneys in question, that would pretty much show that Santa, being the being who climbs down all chimneys, doesn't exist.

I think you'll find he has a list of who is naughty and who is nice. Failureto spot him climbing down any chimneys could simply mean no one made the noce list.

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2017 at 11:40 ----------

 

Santa is invisible to all recording equipment, and adults. Only children can see him if they believe.

Exactly, this is all explained in that well known documentary, The Polar Express.

[onewheeldave]

Regarding, in the Western philosophical tradition, the attributing of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence as God's defining characteristics. Many (most) of the arguments for God not existing are based on the fact that the consequences of those characteristics are measurable (for example, the 'Problem of Evil' argument).

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2017 at 11:03 ----------

 

I think you'll find he has a list of who is naughty and who is nice. Failureto spot him climbing down any chimneys could simply mean no one made the noce list.

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2017 at 11:40 ----------

 

Exactly, this is all explained in that well known documentary, The Polar Express.

 

It's very easy for you to define Santa as possessing characteristics that make it impossible to prove he doesn't exist, which is obviously fairly pointless.

 

If however, we take an existing definition of Santa Claus, eg-

 

"Santa Claus is said to make lists of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("good" and "bad", or "naughty" and "nice") and to deliver presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world, and coal to all the misbehaved children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of his elves, who make the toys in his workshop at the North Pole, and his flying reindeer, who pull his sleigh. He is commonly portrayed as living at the North Pole and saying "ho ho ho" often."

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

 

then it is straightforward to devise an empirical experiment that could prove that Santa Claus (as defined above), doesn't exist.

[Cyclone]

Replace Santa with alien life, orbiting tea pot, ghosts, fairies, the goblin king or whatever takes your fancy.

The fact that you can't find evidence of something is not evidence that it doesn't exist. Thus it's difficult to prove negatives. Except bounded sets, where lack of evidence coincides with evidence of lack (ie my cup has water in it, you take a look, no it doesn't) and is evidence to disprove the claim.

 

So requesting atheists to provide proof of non existence is a) reversal of the burden of proof, b) known to be impossible. And thus claiming that their inability to provide the impossible falsifies their position is incorrect.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Cyclone

[onewheeldave]

I was simply pointing out that, with existing definitions of Santa Claus, it is entirely possible to design empirical experiments proving he doesn't exist.

[Cyclone]

I think you've conflated existence with coming down chimneys.

[monkey104]

The drugs are still working then!

[onewheeldave]

Ironically, the one thing the definition of Santa Claus I used above didn't refer to, was chimneys

[Cyclone]

You said "with existing definitions", did you not recognise the whole chimney thing as being a part of one of the those?

[onewheeldave]

You said "with existing definitions", did you not recognise the whole chimney thing as being a part of one of the those?

That's not what I said- I selected one existing definition and then quoted that definition, and, gave the source of it. That particular definition doesn't mention chimneys.

.......

 

If however, we take an existing definition of Santa Claus, eg-

 

"Santa Claus is said to make lists of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("good" and "bad", or "naughty" and "nice") and to deliver presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world, and coal to all the misbehaved children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of his elves, who make the toys in his workshop at the North Pole, and his flying reindeer, who pull his sleigh. He is commonly portrayed as living at the North Pole and saying "ho ho ho" often."

 

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

 

then it is straightforward to devise an empirical experiment that could prove that Santa Claus (as defined above), doesn't exist.

 

My point was, that once we actually pin down the characteristics of 'Santa' (or any other entity), it's often possible to devise an experiment that can disprove it.

[Cyclone]

I was simply pointing out that, with existing definitions of Santa Claus, it is entirely possible to design empirical experiments proving he doesn't exist.

 

That is what you said.

And I just referenced a common part of the myth, that of coming down chimneys, it could have equally been any other part, delivering presents or coal or whatever.

Of course not finding a fat man in a red suit delivering coal/presents on xmas eve doesn't prove non existence though. At best it proves that santa doesn't deliver presents and coal (if you've managed to stake out every house in the world).