Originally posted by divegeester
That's not logic, that's trite.
I think it does illustrate a logical point about proving a negative, which was raised in the opening post. In fact, if one thinks about it, there is far more evidence (whether one counts it as good or bad evidence) for the existence of Santa Claus than for his nonexistence. There are stories, pictures, films, etc., etc, etc. What evidence is there for Santa’s nonexistence?
And yet, neither you nor I think that Santa Claus exists. But how would you answer someone who thinks that the fact that you cannot prove that Santa doesn’t exist is somehow decisive?
You can, without too much trouble, substitute “God” for “Santa”, and the twin problems of what constitutes acceptable evidence for existence,
and that of non-evidence for non-existence remain. But—
Simply substituting “God” for “Santa”, and “the Bible” for “The Night Before Christmas”—etc., etc.—does not alter either the logic or the question of acceptable evidence. For that reason, much of the debate on here centers on the question of what does/ought to constitute acceptable (epistemically justifying) evidence, and such logical errors as circular reasoning. But every once in awhile, somebody posts something that seems to imply that different rules of evidence and/or logic apply to the existence of God than to the existence of—say—Santa. In such a context, the triteness may be justified.