Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why didn't you post the name of the first person to make a shipment a canoe, kayak or raft? I doubt you would no. What about the first kettle, wagon, saddle or shoe? How could we possibly know who did something hundreds or thousands of years before copywriter or patents were even used let alone important.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I wonder how Allah would have given Adam the name of the kiwifruit. As far as we can tell, Adam was illiterate and had no pen and paper or even clay tablets (they were running around naked back then, eating forbidden fruit). It would seem unlikely that he passed on the name of this strange fruit from down under that was not to be discovered for another six thousand or so years. It was never mentioned in the bible or the Quran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
tell me, what are your arabic names for pisang (banana in malay) shara, ranginan or durraqin (persian names for kinds of peaches) manzana (apple in spanish) or jangu, chinese for orange?.
names can get diverted slowly and by long time the same name could be completly different than the origin names and new langauge is created and new nations are generated and some people move to another places and they create new names extracted from the origin
for example in the same comunity and same nations How are you it can be said as howya
Allah told us that he created us to worship him
And I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone). The Holy Quran
how would the first people on earth would pray to Allah and worship him if they do not know the langauge .
the verse in the Quran of Adam got all the names from Allah is one of the many evidances of the Quran and it is not fair for your self to reject all of them and try to create exit and fake justification for each one.
Pulsar SOUND , human development inside the womb , world's lowest point , earth rotation, total number of joints,
moon phases and others could not be mentioned by a desert man and more than 1400 years ago.
.
Quote:
And so far as boatbuilding goes, there is evidence of mesolithic boatbuilding and maritime trade from the Indian sub continent to the Red sea. ..
that can not be before Noah
.
Quote:
It is simply more feasible to suggest that Flood and ark story is true, especially since the evidence of such a global flood is refuted by geology, and the Ark story is traceable back to a Meospotamian story of a floating box built to survive a local river -basin flooding, inflated by the Bible -writers to a global flood..
..
I will not deny or confirm that the flood was for the whole earth or for some area but because the flood is mentioned in the Quran it is true 100%
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"It can't be proven that there is no God, this is true. Much in the same way that it can't be proven that there is no Santa Claus. It CAN be established that these claims are entirely derived from the imagination however, and in no way correspond to anything that can be demonstrated to have physical reality."
What do you imagine God looks like? Can you describe Him to me?
Here is South Park's interpretation of what God looks like. Since God can only be imagined,, this is as good as any.
Is it also your position that the earth is only about 5,000-6,000 years old, and that claims to the contrary as simply not scientific?
It is always amusing when skeptics try to link proving God with proving Santa Clause. Fine a house with a fireplace and a Christmas tree with no presents under it. If you can stay awake all night you will prove what you already know, Santa does not exist.
It doesn't matter what God looks like, The only important things is does He exist. The only imagination in this discussion is in your post and it comes from the funny paper. If you want to get your theology from the funnies, be my guest.
There is a better source for the existence of God if you could understand it.
It is always amusing when skeptics try to link proving God with proving Santa Clause. Fine a house with a fireplace and a Christmas tree with no presents under it. If you can stay awake all night you will prove what you already know, Santa does not exist.
It doesn't matter what God looks like, The only important things is does He exist. The only imagination in this discussion is in your post and it comes from the funny paper. If you want to get your theology from the funnies, be my guest.
There is a better source for the existence of God if you could understand it.
Yes, understanding the Bible requires turning off rational thought and flipping on the zombie switch.
That is truly ludicrous. That isn't an argument - that is a wordsalad (2).
I am sure I mentioned contradictions before, and it would be a relief to get back to topic, rather than exhibit your total lack of understanding of evolution.
Salads properly prepared and the right dressing used, are very good. All of you evo seem to forget that anyone taught in the public school system, starting in about the 8th or 9th grade including collegr has been taught evolution. The basics of evolution are not rocket surgery.
Quote:
(1) the nativities
In Luke the family come from Galilee for the tax census (1) and after the circumcision rite (less than a fortnight for sure) go back to Galilee. But Matthew has them already living in Judea and, after a flight to Egypt (and that's probably more than a year after the birth - (2.7 and 2.16) they evidently intend to return to their home in Judea but are warned to go somewhere else for fear of Herio's son - years before the Romans ever took over.
Tehflight to Egypt was after the vfisit of the magi(Mt 2:13).
Quote:
(2) John has no transfiguration. He absolutely has the loaves and fishes and the return by walking on the water - same trip to Bethsaida, but no transfiguration.
Informatin not included in a gospel can't be a contradiction.
Quote:
(3) total conflict in the Resurrection. John has no angels when the women first go to the empty tomb, Mark says the women ran away in fright and said nothing to anyone, in Matthew they run away in Joy, slap into Jesus, then go to the disciples and talk their heads off.
Matthew and Mark both say they left in fear. Matthew adds joy. That does not make a contradiction. They didn't tell anyone until they met Jesus and He told to tell His brethren.
Quote:
John says they go back and say Jesus is gone and they don't know who took him away.
Luke has an appearance to Simon that nobody else even mentions (to make it agree with I cor.15.5). And of course, Luke denies both the absence of Thomas (the eleven, minus Judas, of course) are there, and the spear because Jesus does not show a wound in his side. Finally because in Luke the disciples do not go to Galilee, Luke changes the angel's message at (24.7) from going to Galilee to what He said in Galilee.
You keep trying to make a lack of information a contradiction. That is impossible.
Quote:
These are the touchstone contradictions, and, if you can't give a plausible explanation, they unloads the ton of others almost as good, and indeed all the others hat just look odd.
Which debunks the whole gospel story.
Off you go.
I have given you more than an explanation, but you will not consider what I say plausible, Nothing I says will seem plausible to you. However, you need to accept that lack of information can't be a contradiction. If you accept that, most of what you consider a contrasdiction, will not be one.
Quote:
(1) the long discussion with pneuma looked at this in detail, but he couldn't get over that Luke in Acts 5.37 shows that his tax/census was the one that Josephus (with the revolt of Judas the Galilean) shows was after the Romans took over Judea
History shows the Romans took a census periodically I can't remember the length between them.
Quote:
(2) now suppose that the science showed Ape DNA on the gun? Then it would prove that an ape really had done the shooting. Sure, it would have had to have been trained to do it - but what an alibi, eh? And what a total debunk of your foolish argument. That a chimp or gorilla is not a human is known, but the DNA being closer than any other (and the minor differences only say the same thing in reverse) show we are all apes - in the "kinds" category, and humans are merely 'Micro' evolved. You're done, son. If you accept Micro evolution, you can't deny human evolution - except on Genesis -literalist Creationist denialist dumb, blind and closed -mindedist grounds.
I can and do deny any kind of evolution between species on the basis of DNA and the laws of genetics.
If ape DNA was on the gun it proves it did the shooting, it doesn't show if it was deliberate. In playing with the gun it may have pulled the trigger accidentally. To try and link that with man evolving from apes is not only absurd, it is completely unscientific.
What is spoken of in Genesis is what we see LITERALLY happening thousands of times every day in plants, sea life, animal life and human life. It is amusing to me, but said, that you reject what can be proved by observation and being repeated and accept what can't be.
Yes, understanding the Bible requires turning off rational thought and flipping on the zombie switch.
Another amusing comment based on ignorance and bias. Many Christians are far better at rational though than you are. In fact a comment like that points to your lack of rational thought. It seems your zombie switch does not have an off position.
It can't be proven that there is no God, this is true. Much in the same way that it can't be proven that there is no Santa Claus. It CAN be established that these claims are entirely derived from the imagination however, and in no way correspond to anything that can be demonstrated to have physical reality.
Science has establish an amazing amount of information on just how the universe came into being during the last 100 years. But the investigation continues. What science DOES NOT DO, is make up answers and declare them to be true. That is the realm of religion.
Been down this road before TotN.
A few years ago, C. Michael Patton wrote an article on the "God-Santa Conflation":
One of my all-time favorite movies is “Elf.” Our family probably watches it three or four times every Christmas season. The child-like naivety of “Buddy” the elf is more than enough to make anyone smile. He believes in Christmas. He most certainly believes in Santa. It takes us back to the time when we, who’s parents introduced us to the Jolly man, anticipated his coming every Christmas and defended his existence on the playground. There is one scene in Elf that I really love (okay, there are a hundred that I really love!). It was when Buddy was being told by Santa that many people did not believe he existed. An astonished Buddy does not know how to respond (as if it is the first time he ever considered that people might not believe in Santa). First, he wonders who they think brings all the gifts. After Santa says that there is a rumor that it is the parents, Buddy says, “That’s crazy. What about Santa’s cookies? I suppose parents eat those too?” Don’t be too hard on Buddy. He is just trying to find a sufficient explanation for the presents and cookies.
Many times when I am talking to atheists about the Christian faith they bring up their graduation ceremony from believing in Santa. As they graduated from a belief in Santa, so they say, they have also graduated from a belief in God. While this has an emotional appeal and seeming parallel, it does not really work. In fact, it works in favor of theism more than atheism.
The reason why people believe in Santa is not simply because their parents tell them he is real, but because parents tell them that Santa is the explanation for a phenomenon that happens every Christmas morning. Santa is the one who brought the toys and ate the cookies. When the kids wake up Christmas morning and see all the new toys (at my house the ones from Santa were unwrapped) and ask, “Who got me this?”, they are asking a very reasonable question. They are seeking to find the cause behind the presence of their new toys. It’s the whole cause and effect thing. If the new toys were not there, there would be no reason to ask such a question. Therefore, the presence of Santa is invoked by a need to find causation for their Christmas morning joy associated with the toys.
Therefore, Santa is, by definition, the cause behind the effect of the toys and cookie crumbs. When people quit believing in Santa, they don’t quit believing in a cause, they just change the association behind the cause. It is not as if one day kids come of age and realize that the toys magically appear every Christmas morning with no explanation. It is not as if they believe that given enough time, chance will produce a situation where every year on December 24th you can place a plate of cookies by the fireplace and expect that they will be gone the next morning without explanation. You see, Santa just changes names. No one quits believing in the agent (whatever the name may be) responsible for the presents and the cookies. They just no longer believe that the agent’s name is “Santa.” Therefore, in a very real sense, no one quits believing in Santa (the cause of the toys and eaten cookies).
When it comes to God, the situation is the same. Existence itself demands a causal explanation. We are an effect, looking for the cause. God, by definition, is that cause. Just as we cannot say that there is no cause for the toys under the tree Christmas morning, you cannot say that there is no cause for all of existence. That is why R.C. Spoul has said that the best argument for the existence of God is this: “If something exists, God exists…Something does exist, so God does exist.”
“If toys are under the tree, someone must have put them there…Toys are under the tree, so someone put them there.”
Considering this, while we could not say that the parallel between God and Santa works for atheists (for it is simply a slight of hand illustration), it does work for theists because it illustrates that effects always need an explanation. Just changing the name of the explanation does not in any way do away with the need for a cause. Santa (the cause behind the toys) is still needed. God (the cause behind existence) is still needed. No one graduates from either, even if they change their names.
Buddy’s conclusion may have been misplaced, but his logic was sound: “That’s crazy. Who do you think is responsible for eating the cookies?” Who/What do you think is responsible for existence? Whatever your answer, that is your God.
Salads properly prepared and the right dressing used, are very good. All of you evo seem to forget that anyone taught in the public school system, starting in about the 8th or 9th grade including collegr has been taught evolution. The basics of evolution are not rocket surgery.
Tehflight to Egypt was after the vfisit of the magi(Mt 2:13).
Informatin not included in a gospel can't be a contradiction.
Matthew and Mark both say they left in fear. Matthew adds joy. That does not make a contradiction. They didn't tell anyone until they met Jesus and He told to tell His brethren.
You keep trying to make a lack of information a contradiction. That is impossible.
I have given you more than an explanation, but you will not consider what I say plausible, Nothing I says will seem plausible to you. However, you need to accept that lack of information can't be a contradiction. If you accept that, most of what you consider a contrasdiction, will not be one.
History shows the Romans took a census periodically I can't remember the length between them.
I can and do deny any kind of evolution between species on the basis of DNA and the laws of genetics.
If ape DNA was on the gun it proves it did the shooting, it doesn't show if it was deliberate. In playing with the gun it may have pulled the trigger accidentally. To try and link that with man evolving from apes is not only absurd, it is completely unscientific.
What is spoken of in Genesis is what we see LITERALLY happening thousands of times every day in plants, sea life, animal life and human life. It is amusing to me, but said, that you reject what can be proved by observation and being repeated and accept what can't be.
Total Euebian garbage. Absolutely smack on the arguments - I should evasive and denialist rhetoric -he used.
Aside from your weak quip about salad dressing, your denial that an important event like the transformation missing from where it should be is not valid evidence of contradiction on little more than a play on words is going to make you a laughing stock amongst unbelievers and an embarrassment amongst believers "God almighty - they will think we are all as stupid as that!"
The attempt to shrug off the Nativity contradiction is even funnier. I hardly need to explain how irrelevant it is, and I don't even need to say that if you repeat it and insist it is a rebuttal, just as you did with the John -Luke contradiction, you are Eusebius for sure, because the whole post convinces me -you are.
I don't know how you persuaded the mods that you were someone else but I'll bet my wife and daughter that you are Eusebius .
Your evolution denial and complete lack of understanding of the whole chimp with a gun scenario shows that you don't understand or are even interested in understanding. Just playing about with words and denying everything.
Your woeful excuse for not addressing the Census discrepancy merely shows the miserable colour of your money. At least Pneuma fought like mad to explain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Another amusing comment based on ignorance and bias. Many Christians are far better at rational though than you are. In fact a comment like that points to your lack of rational thought. It seems your zombie switch does not have an off position.
It is always amusing when skeptics try to link proving God with proving Santa Clause. Fine a house with a fireplace and a Christmas tree with no presents under it. If you can stay awake all night you will prove what you already know, Santa does not exist.
It doesn't matter what God looks like, The only important things is does He exist. The only imagination in this discussion is in your post and it comes from the funny paper. If you want to get your theology from the funnies, be my guest.
There is a better source for the existence of God if you could understand it.
The point is not to link God to Santa Claus. The point is that things which are imaginary can only be imagined. They cannot be proven or dis-proven because it is impossible to prove or disprove a negative. A thing which has physical existence can be "proven" to exist by providing the thing in question. An example of a thing which can only be imagined to exist CAN NOT be provided physically because it has no physical existence, and therefore CAN NOT be proven to be real or extant. Which is why there is a big difference between the claim that energy is immutable and therefore eternal, and the claim that God necessarily exists and is the "first cause." The qualities of energy are based on physical observation. We have no experience with any "first causes." Everything we observe is a continuation of that which went before it. Declaring that there MUST be a first cause, and declaring that first cause must be God is simply making up an otherwise unobserved condition, and then declaring that to be true. This is very literally make believe. And if a condition by which there is no "first cause" seems illogical to you, consider a circle or a ball. Neither thing has a beginning or an end. Assigning a starting point or an ending point is entirely arbitrary.
We all had a starting point in the journey we call life. But there was a time before we existed. Yet every particle in our bodies then already existed. Every particle in our bodies now already existed. I am 69, so I have pretty much changed out every particle in my body over the course of those years. Particles of energy that clump together to form matter apparently exist eternally, according to all observation and experimentation.
Now consider that you began a journey through space/time at the exact moment your existence began. And your journey through space/time is entirely random. Remember, you are on a planet that is traveling through space that is in orbit around a star, which is in orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is itself moving through space in relation to the other galaxies. And let's say that by random chance, you eventually ended up again at the exact point in space from which you had begun. Except that everything had changed completely. None of the original references points were the same. Are you experiencing a beginning, or an end? in fact all you are experiencing is ongoing change.
Because you are human, the organism that is you will eventually die. But those particles that you were made from, which had existed eternally, will continue on eternally. No beginning, no end, only continual change.
I believe that I DO fully understand the reasoning behind the belief in God. I was raised Christian and so I have a very good background in Christian thought and beliefs. I have rejected my Christian training because the Christian rationale never moves beyond the stage of pure imagination. I don't subscribe to it because I see no reason to subscribe to the unfounded imaginings of others. Combined with the whole Christian system of "original sin" and requirement that divine blood needed to be shed to provide "salvation" for what was clearly God's plan from the beginning, and what we end up with is a very simplistic and childlike view of reality. Not surprising at all, considering that people thousands of years ago [i]were very childlike.[i] They had no knowledge of or concept of how the universe operates, and as a result made up answers that seemed to explain things, but which in fact had NO connection to anything real or valid at all. Given what we actually know about the working of the universe today however, continuing to subscribe to this ancient make believe is beyond childlike. It is delusional. Using the fruits of modern science to dispute the competence of modern science would be fairly humorous if it wasn't so clearly ludicrous.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 08-04-2017 at 12:11 PM..
A few years ago, C. Michael Patton wrote an article on the "God-Santa Conflation":
One of my all-time favorite movies is “Elf.” Our family probably watches it three or four times every Christmas season. The child-like naivety of “Buddy” the elf is more than enough to make anyone smile. He believes in Christmas. He most certainly believes in Santa. It takes us back to the time when we, who’s parents introduced us to the Jolly man, anticipated his coming every Christmas and defended his existence on the playground. There is one scene in Elf that I really love (okay, there are a hundred that I really love!). It was when Buddy was being told by Santa that many people did not believe he existed. An astonished Buddy does not know how to respond (as if it is the first time he ever considered that people might not believe in Santa). First, he wonders who they think brings all the gifts. After Santa says that there is a rumor that it is the parents, Buddy says, “That’s crazy. What about Santa’s cookies? I suppose parents eat those too?” Don’t be too hard on Buddy. He is just trying to find a sufficient explanation for the presents and cookies.
Many times when I am talking to atheists about the Christian faith they bring up their graduation ceremony from believing in Santa. As they graduated from a belief in Santa, so they say, they have also graduated from a belief in God. While this has an emotional appeal and seeming parallel, it does not really work. In fact, it works in favor of theism more than atheism.
The reason why people believe in Santa is not simply because their parents tell them he is real, but because parents tell them that Santa is the explanation for a phenomenon that happens every Christmas morning. Santa is the one who brought the toys and ate the cookies. When the kids wake up Christmas morning and see all the new toys (at my house the ones from Santa were unwrapped) and ask, “Who got me this?”, they are asking a very reasonable question. They are seeking to find the cause behind the presence of their new toys. It’s the whole cause and effect thing. If the new toys were not there, there would be no reason to ask such a question. Therefore, the presence of Santa is invoked by a need to find causation for their Christmas morning joy associated with the toys.
Therefore, Santa is, by definition, the cause behind the effect of the toys and cookie crumbs. When people quit believing in Santa, they don’t quit believing in a cause, they just change the association behind the cause. It is not as if one day kids come of age and realize that the toys magically appear every Christmas morning with no explanation. It is not as if they believe that given enough time, chance will produce a situation where every year on December 24th you can place a plate of cookies by the fireplace and expect that they will be gone the next morning without explanation. You see, Santa just changes names. No one quits believing in the agent (whatever the name may be) responsible for the presents and the cookies. They just no longer believe that the agent’s name is “Santa.” Therefore, in a very real sense, no one quits believing in Santa (the cause of the toys and eaten cookies).
When it comes to God, the situation is the same. Existence itself demands a causal explanation. We are an effect, looking for the cause. God, by definition, is that cause. Just as we cannot say that there is no cause for the toys under the tree Christmas morning, you cannot say that there is no cause for all of existence. That is why R.C. Spoul has said that the best argument for the existence of God is this: “If something exists, God exists…Something does exist, so God does exist.”
“If toys are under the tree, someone must have put them there…Toys are under the tree, so someone put them there.”
Considering this, while we could not say that the parallel between God and Santa works for atheists (for it is simply a slight of hand illustration), it does work for theists because it illustrates that effects always need an explanation. Just changing the name of the explanation does not in any way do away with the need for a cause. Santa (the cause behind the toys) is still needed. God (the cause behind existence) is still needed. No one graduates from either, even if they change their names.
Buddy’s conclusion may have been misplaced, but his logic was sound: “That’s crazy. Who do you think is responsible for eating the cookies?” Who/What do you think is responsible for existence? Whatever your answer, that is your God.
Someone please explain to our goldenbrick here how this actually supports the atheist analogy santa - god and if the writer of the article didn't understand that, somebody needs to explain it to him, also.
P.s I thought I'd look up his logical credentials.
C. Michael Patton (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary) is president of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. In addition to serving under Chuck Swindoll for six years at Stonebriar Community Church, he is a fellow at the Credo House of Theology in Edmond, Oklahoma, developer of The Theology Program, and hos
' Nuff sed. Goldie, I'd almost say "I'm surprised at you" but of course, I'm not. intellectual dishonesty and clumsiness is your stock in trade in debate.
P.p.s and please nobody say what's wrong. It should be obvious that the entire analogy is neing ignored other than first cause argument, and that runs up against the watchmaker argument and the 'which santa' argument.
A few years ago, C. Michael Patton wrote an article on the "God-Santa Conflation":
One of my all-time favorite movies is “Elf.” Our family probably watches it three or four times every Christmas season. The child-like naivety of “Buddy” the elf is more than enough to make anyone smile. He believes in Christmas. He most certainly believes in Santa. It takes us back to the time when we, who’s parents introduced us to the Jolly man, anticipated his coming every Christmas and defended his existence on the playground. There is one scene in Elf that I really love (okay, there are a hundred that I really love!). It was when Buddy was being told by Santa that many people did not believe he existed. An astonished Buddy does not know how to respond (as if it is the first time he ever considered that people might not believe in Santa). First, he wonders who they think brings all the gifts. After Santa says that there is a rumor that it is the parents, Buddy says, “That’s crazy. What about Santa’s cookies? I suppose parents eat those too?” Don’t be too hard on Buddy. He is just trying to find a sufficient explanation for the presents and cookies.
Many times when I am talking to atheists about the Christian faith they bring up their graduation ceremony from believing in Santa. As they graduated from a belief in Santa, so they say, they have also graduated from a belief in God. While this has an emotional appeal and seeming parallel, it does not really work. In fact, it works in favor of theism more than atheism.
The reason why people believe in Santa is not simply because their parents tell them he is real, but because parents tell them that Santa is the explanation for a phenomenon that happens every Christmas morning. Santa is the one who brought the toys and ate the cookies. When the kids wake up Christmas morning and see all the new toys (at my house the ones from Santa were unwrapped) and ask, “Who got me this?”, they are asking a very reasonable question. They are seeking to find the cause behind the presence of their new toys. It’s the whole cause and effect thing. If the new toys were not there, there would be no reason to ask such a question. Therefore, the presence of Santa is invoked by a need to find causation for their Christmas morning joy associated with the toys.
Therefore, Santa is, by definition, the cause behind the effect of the toys and cookie crumbs. When people quit believing in Santa, they don’t quit believing in a cause, they just change the association behind the cause. It is not as if one day kids come of age and realize that the toys magically appear every Christmas morning with no explanation. It is not as if they believe that given enough time, chance will produce a situation where every year on December 24th you can place a plate of cookies by the fireplace and expect that they will be gone the next morning without explanation. You see, Santa just changes names. No one quits believing in the agent (whatever the name may be) responsible for the presents and the cookies. They just no longer believe that the agent’s name is “Santa.” Therefore, in a very real sense, no one quits believing in Santa (the cause of the toys and eaten cookies).
When it comes to God, the situation is the same. Existence itself demands a causal explanation. We are an effect, looking for the cause. God, by definition, is that cause. Just as we cannot say that there is no cause for the toys under the tree Christmas morning, you cannot say that there is no cause for all of existence. That is why R.C. Spoul has said that the best argument for the existence of God is this: “If something exists, God exists…Something does exist, so God does exist.”
“If toys are under the tree, someone must have put them there…Toys are under the tree, so someone put them there.”
Considering this, while we could not say that the parallel between God and Santa works for atheists (for it is simply a slight of hand illustration), it does work for theists because it illustrates that effects always need an explanation. Just changing the name of the explanation does not in any way do away with the need for a cause. Santa (the cause behind the toys) is still needed. God (the cause behind existence) is still needed. No one graduates from either, even if they change their names.
Buddy’s conclusion may have been misplaced, but his logic was sound: “That’s crazy. Who do you think is responsible for eating the cookies?” Who/What do you think is responsible for existence? Whatever your answer, that is your God.
As I pointed out to omega2xx, the concept of God and the concept of Santa are related only in that each is imaginary and has no physical existence. Poor Santa gets abused because he is so much a part of modern mythology. But in truth the belief in God is no different than the belief in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of these things can only be imagined. Because they only exist in the imagination, and cannot be demonstrated to have any physical reality.
Santa, God, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster... choose whichever one you prefer and declare it to be real. But all you will have is a hand full of make believe based on some imaginary standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
