CCKazi007 said:
How is comparing "Santa" to "God" a bad comparison or a rediculous statement? they're both fictional and made up so they CAN'T be proved by science, because science is based on EVIDENCE and PROOF. The only differance between the two is the number of people that believe in the icon "God". We have zero information about the existance of God or Santa so to me they are in the SAME category. So to sum up your argument you believe that there's a "divine being" just because there's no scientific evidence that proves it false, well in that case "Santa" would work cuz there is no scientific evidence disproving his existance either so why don't you believe in him? well..... COMMON SENSE! can't you see? The problem with RELIGION is if God did exist wouldn't there be ONE RELIGION? instead of 200 different religions?
Youre not following logic.
We can use science to prove weither Santa exists or not. If santa does exist, he is a physical person living in this world and will leave physical evidence behind. We have not observed any of this physical evidence, therefore, its unlikely that he exists. Therefore, after observing the lack of this physical evidence, we have gained information about his existance. We already know he doesnt exist.
But unlike Santa, we have not observed any physical evidence to date that will provide us with information about the value of the "god's existance" variable. This variable will take on 2 values: either "God does exist" or "god does NOT exist". So far, we have not observed anything that provide us with any information about this binary variable's value. Therefore we have absolute uncertainty, this is radically different than what we have on the "santa's existance" variable. For the santa one, we know what value it takes on, it takes on the "santa does NOT exist" value given the physical evidence we have observed.
So you defy logic by saying they are the same.
total uncertainty does not equal
total certainty.