I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.

What if Santa, does exist though, but he's not the one responsible for putting presents under your tree? What if Santa Clause is a real person but not going around the world to give presents, or is going around the world but is just eating the cookies you give him, and your parents are putting the presents there and saying it is Santa, or someone else other than Santa does it, while Santa just eats the cookies? You see, any claim that you make, the more details you have in that claim, the more you have to tie those details together, otherwise, even if we were to prove one detail correct, that doesn't mean every detail in the claim is correct. You and me both know, or at least 99.999999% certain that Santa doesn't go around spreading Christmas cheer, our parents eventually tell us it was a story they told us. Just because presents appear everywhere, wouldn't mean that a man living in the north pole named Santa is responsible for it, the cause and effect there is also an assertion that has yet to be proven. The effects aren't necessary, the asserted effects are simply asserted to be from the asserted cause. If a god does exist, this doesn't necessarily mean that an afterlife exists either, if we proved a god's existence, that wouldn't necessarily prove any other claims about said god. Same if, santa's existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Santa is necessarily the one putting presents under the tree, it would seem intuitive and natural to think, because the only claim of Santa's existence also claims that this person puts presents under our Christmas trees.

I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.

Why should we use faith in this instance though, when I say faith, I mean belief in no evidence or with evidence against you, or logical reasoning, because logical reasoning is self evident, or as philosophers call "a-priori". One does need to decide for themselves if said god is the Christian god, however, they still need to justify their decisions to believe logically, if they want to be substantiated. If we see more details about a claim coming true, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of them are true, unless those details, or various claims within one are tied together. For example with evolution, (first thing that comes to mind, I'm not making an evolution v.s. christianity argument) evolution is a theory with a large body of facts, it is a claim with a bunch of miniature claims within it. One premise of evolution is that the layers of our earth align in a way where the top layers are newer than the layers underneath, because of how earth science works, and thus we can date fossils depending of how deep underground, (we have other means of dating to, but I will just use this one for now) and in what layer of rock they are preserved inside, which is the second premise. Third premise is that all the fossils line up in a timeline that shows change over time or evolutions. We conclude that fossil X is so-and-so old because it is in rock layer 1, because according to earth science layer 1 is so-and-so old. The age of the rock layer is one claim, and the age of the fossil from said layer is another claim, if we discover that the rock layer preserves everything in it from a certain range of time, then that connects it to the fossil, making true the claim that the fossil is from a certain range of time. However what is the connection that if a supreme being exists, then an afterlife exists? and further more, the afterlife itself is two claims, or two premises. If we discover that we live again after death, why would that mean we live forever after death? If a man named Santa Clause was found to exist and lived in the north pole, how does it follow that, this man distributes presents all over the world? We assume B follows from A, because B and A are asserted not only by themselves but asserted within that same assertion that B follows A, without a reason why, without the connection. In other words, if somethings within a claim is true, it doesn't mean everything in a claim is true.

I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.

These are things that can be used for arguing for or against Santa's existence.

I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.

Indeed. I agree.

I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.

Ahhh, you are THAT kind of agnostic, interesting.

Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.

Well, what do you consider ruling out? Concluding something isn't worth believing, or concluding something is impossible. I do the former, but not the latter. A god COULD exist, I just haven't been supplied any reason to think so. So I'm not ruling it out, just can't really consider it much with what it supplies, if any evidence or logical argument came up, after some contemplating, I probably would change my stance on the issue.

This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.

I don't think there is a logical argument though.

I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.

Faith and confidence, and trust are different, at least with the type of faith I'm talking about. I can logically justify having confidence, because I control my own outcomes, my own achievements, so whatever I can achieve, at least to an extent is based on me, and I can control that, and I have past success, I have evidence to support confidence. Things external to me, like god, I have no control over. Trust is different because I can base my trust on how much my fellow companions have earned it, I can base it on evidence, personal evidence, but evidence none the less. For example, if I know someone whom always does (what I feel) is the right thing to do, or is fair, just, and kind towards others, and has shown this behavior time and time again, I have evidence that I can trust this person. God, however, I don't even know if a god even exists.

I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.

I don't agree, logic can be more or less substantiated, and the reasoning I am aware of for a god's existence is lacking, however to with hold belief, or to not be convinced of a god's existence is by default logically justified. I don't need a reason to not believe something, I need a reason TO believe something.

Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.

This again is a different type of faith then that is applied to a god, and what I mean by faith as an apistevist. I can trust that my spouse won't cheat on me, because she has shown me that she isn't the type of person to do that, and if she wasn't worthy of that trust I wouldn't date her anyway. If I am dating somebody, I have no reason to think they will cheat on me. If I am dating somebody and they do cheat on me, then I have less reason to trust them, and thus don't trust them. Trust can be, and I prefer it to be personally, to be evidence based. Trust is something you earn, that you show that you are worthy of.