In this column, Cecil answers the age old question regarding old Kris Kringle.
After reading it for the upteenth time, I had a bit of an epiphany. The implausibility of Santa visiting every child on earth in one evening doesn’t disprove his existence. It just proves that we are misled about him. Maybe he just visits a few select children.
If we prove that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree, does that mean there was never a George Washington?
So, basically, you’re saying that Santa exists, but he’s an asshole that only visits a few children? 
But part of the definition of him actually being Santa Claus is that he gives presents to all the kids. If he just gave presents to a few kids, well then he’s not Santa Claus. He’s just a guy who gives out some presents to a few kids. By your reasoning, my dad could be Santa Claus. No. To be Santa, you have to give presents to everyone.
[sub]My dad really is Santa Claus.[/sub]
Wow, my Dad really gets around. Then again, he can travel at Mach 1000 and stop time.
Or maybe he gives no presents to any children. Maybe all of the stories about giving presents is nothing more than a coverup for some evil motive he has.
The point is that showing that part of the legend is impossible does not disprove all of it any more than finding inconsistincies in Origin of the Species disproves evolution.
I obviously don’t believe in Santa. I was just pointing out the the proof of his non-existence is faulty.
Why would he need to travel at Mach 1000 if he could stop time?
He’s not your dad. Poopyhead.
But wouldn’t you agree that what makes (the idea of) Santa Santa is that he’s this nice guy who gives presents to everyone and flies around on a sleigh pulled by reindeer. If he’s not that guy, well then he’s not (the idea of) Santa Claus. If you were to disprove that he does those things that make him Santa, then you’ve disproved that he’s Santa. Hence, you’ve proved that Santa doesn’t exist.
You haven’t disproved that something might exist that gives no presents to children. But that thing wouldn’t be Santa any more. Do you see what I’m getting at?
It could be Sandy Claws.
Many families can afford gifts for their children, or at least have access to something (such as Toys for Tots) that can help them get toys for their kids. But what about the children whose parents can’t get them gifts? Maybe Santa just visits those children.
I’ve never heard tales of Santa giving gifts to non-Christian kids before- therefore, he can’t give them to everyone. Does that mean that he’s not really Santa, because he doesn’t give Christmas presents to people who don’t celebrate Christmas?
No, because that’s not part of our idea of what Santa is. Our idea of Santa is that he goes around giving presents to all the nice little boys and girls within cultures that have a Santa myth.
What I’m saying is that we have a certain image of what Santa is. If we can prove that he isn’t what that image is - for example, we prove that stopping time isn’t possible and that it would be impossible for Santa to deliver presents to more than, say, 100 kids in a night within quite a limited area, then we can say “He doesn’t do what Santa does” - deliver presents to children anywhere. Santa is supposed to deliver presents to children anywhere. He can’t get to Australia and America and England all in one night - no one can. If we can prove that no one can, we can prove there’s no Santa. Thus, he is not Santa and Santa is not him.
If there was a guy who gave out presents to as many needy children as he could (and considering the amount of needy children in the word, one man can only cover a very small percentage), that would be nice. But it wouldn’t be Santa.
Now you’re onto something. That makes it much more limited. How many people below the poverty line in the US? We might be able to downgrade SC’s speed from Mach 1000 to Mach 100.
[sub]
Really, I’m just joining your side in the argument because Francesca stubbornly refuses to admit that her Mom has been fooling around with my Dad.
[/sub]