Comparing God With Santa Or a Pink Unicorn

On the surface the atheist argument that God is no different than Santa, as how can you determine a difference, seems to make sense. I concede that it seems to make some sense but the fault in the argument ironically, is that the reason why the argument is unsound is the very same reason - because we can't determine the difference.

So the comparison of God to Santa or an invisible pink unicorn (IPU), is the Fallacy Of False Equivalence.

I shall now explain why and what that fallacy is.

Such a fallacy is committed when a comparison is made but potential differences are either omitted or fudged over in some way so that there isn't a truly logical equivalence.

With God and the IPU, there are several errors atheists gloss over. They say God is identical in that God is invisible, and so is Santa, and God is believe to do miracles, like Santa can do magic, and they say that anyone can invent a similar entity. So let's look into those things;

1. Invisibility. The first error hidden in this argument is a fallacy , which goes like this;

"Santa is invisible and he is false.
God is also invisible, therefore God must be false."

Here is why this argument is logically unsound;

"David is intelligent and he's an atheist.
Michael is also intelligent, therefore he must be an atheist."

Conclusion: In fact we KNOW that invisible things can also be true and real, so the atheist is jumping to the conclusion that God's invisibility is the same as Santa's and is based on imagination, rather than proving their claim because for all they know God's invisibility may be for a similar reason as the Higgs Boson, only God is not "within" the universe so He can't be detected. The point is, the atheist is asking us to overlook his assumption that invisibility is for the same reason when in fact they just don't know.

2. Magic/Miracles. The error is the same here;

"A magician does magic tricks and those are false, so is Santa's magic.
God does miracles we argue are equivalent to magic,
therefore God's miracles are also false."

The error is the same. But again, arguably miracles are real rather than false. For example the miracle of life. But of course, that is a matter of debate among theists/atheist but even so, if life really does only exist because God created it, then an eyeball is a miracle which is real and true. So again there is an assumption with the atheist that magic is the same as the miraculous, but if a lifeform exists as the result of a miracle but magic is false and cannot produce anything, then logically miracles and magic cannot be equivalent. Now even if the atheist protests and says, "but miracles are magic", he is playing a WEAK HAND, because even if the atheist merely does not know whether miracles are true or false, that is sufficient logically to conclude that you cannot say magic is equivalent, based only on ignorance.

3. You can invent magic entities and say they have the same characteristics as God.

The reason why at this moment I could invent a false entity which had all the characteristics God has is the same reason I could invent a particle identical to a Higgs Boson and simply say this particle exists only in other universes, but this says nothing of God's existence. In other words, the reason we can invent false things that seem identical to things which may very well not be false, is because if a real thing is hidden, invisible, or not real in a very clear way by which there are only few methods to identify it, then we are blind to the difference between that real thing and a false thing because we cannot examine it, we cannot see it, and we cannot track it. So because all false imaginings are hidden, and invisible because they don't exist, that is why it is easy to invent false things as long as they can't be seen, but this doesn't mean the thing you copy is false.

For example I could at this moment say that something like a  human being exists on the far side of the galaxy, or they exist in other universes. I could invent a false thing identical to a real thing but logically would that make the real thing false?

No it wouldn't. So yet again we can ask the question over and over; "How do you know God is the same as Santa". As you can see from this evaluation, an atheist can't possibly know they are the same based on the reasons s/he gives.

Final Conclusion: My statement to atheists who argue this and enjoy the mockery and feigned superiority? I can only quote Captain Kirk......."I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect".

Evolutionists Argue Bad Design In Life Because They Commit Slothful Induction Fallacy

Slothful induction occurs when someone doesn't focus on where the majority of the evidence is pointing, and instead they will find a reason to go with the opposite conclusion. "Lazy induction", basically means, they focus on one or two pieces of evidence but will ignore the overwhelming majority percentage of evidence and where it points to.

This fallacy is what all arguments pertaining to "bad design" in life, are. They are all based on taking one area of a particular designed system of anatomy, and basically selectively choosing the area they think is badly designed such as the blind spot, then IGNORING the 99.99% of things the eye is designed very well to do.

So the tactic is basically the same for any system in the body, they find something they believe it badly designed (but usually they just don't understand the anatomy very well) then they ignore the HUGE LIST of things that system does marvellously well and is designed brilliantly to do, and just focus on one or two complaints that they have, then infer the astronomical non-sequitur that "therefore this organism is badly designed."

In fact logical rules would only allow you to infer that that one particular thing is badly designed, NOT the whole of the organism's anatomy. And you could only conclude that if you proved it was badly designed, but it turns out that all of the popular arguments atheists argue for bad design, is their own ignorance of anatomy.

 Example 1, the pharynx/larynx. With the design of your throat you can do many successful things it is well designed to do such as chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can viably drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, sing, sneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, where we can successfully change the tone of our voice and how audible it is. If you were to ignore all of the evidence highlighted in blue and ignore the whole structure is all a neat package including aesthetics, and if you were to just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. (the evolutionist's/atheists complaint) then you have just committed slothful induction fallacy by ignoring the majority of the evidence pointing to incredible design.

Example 2 is the eye. The incorrect complaints are usually two, atheists complain about the wiring of the retina and the blind spot. In reality those are not badly designed if you look into it properly, but look at just some of the things the eye is very well designed to do;

- succesful light-penetration of nerve net through clever Muller cells that collect light from largest possible surface area of the retina.
- Successful refreshment of the photo receptors through the choroid.
- we can see in colour 
- we have the software to take the elemental colours and interpret all of the subtleties thereof when merged.
- The lens and eyeball is self-washing, unlike when you have spectacles.
- We can change the focus of our eye, and see in immense detail and clarity.
- We can adjust to the dark by the pupil opening. (humans are diurnal not nocturnal so this would be more advantageous for nocturnal animals so the design seems to be limited but a cat's pupil opens fully which is why you see their eyes glowing, which is the layer behind the retina.)
- The eye lid can stop dust from entering our eye and it doesn't get heavy because it is the correct weight for the muscles.
- We have the exactly correct types of fluid in the eye such as the rhodopsin. It is very sensitive to light and perfect for low light conditions. (correct materials)
- correction of aberration.
- Neat, and beautiful structure.
- The software in the brain to create vision,

This is of course only what the camera eye in humans does successfully as a design and there are dozens and dozens more viable designs of eye which enable sight, of which I am not qualified to give you the list of the likely 200 more well designed things our eyes do.

If you were to indulge atheist reasoning you are to forget all that evidence of design and just focus on an irrelevant blind spot or the direction of the photo receptors, atheists would argue.

CONCLUSION: Isn't it obvious that any system the atheists points to, s/he is deliberately selecting the one thing they believe that system is not designed well to do, but ignoring the 99.99% of things it does do well? And to compound that logical error the complaints they argue usually turn out to not be valid.

Isn't it much more likely that given 99.9% of our bodies are designed well, that it's more probable atheists are taking a small percentage of things they BELIEVE are poorly designed, and jumping to the conclusion they are poorly designed? Isn't it more likely that the small percentage they argue is their own error and the figure of 99.99% is then explainable to us if we infer that the figure is actually 100% because the atheist complaints are negligible?

Because when you think about it if a chess master has a game of chess and wins and you think he made two errors, if it is he who is the chess master, isn't it more likely that you as a fan made an error and the small percentage of errors you thought were errors, were actually not?

If we look at the design in life, the designer is atheists would have to admit, coming up with 99.999% fantastic design, so then isn't it more likely it is 100% if the designer can invent those designs?

The blind spot, if it were truly a bad design, would mean most people would be aware of it hindering them in some way. The fact an atheist has to get a piece of paper and a pen and show you how the blind spot exists, is the very evidence that their complaint is negligible, for nobody would need to be shown why the blind spot on a car's side mirror is a problem because they would already know why it was a problem, proving logically by deductive reasoning that the blind spot in the human eye is negligible. So then that is one error the atheist makes, to use the rhetorical device called, "playing it up", to INFLATE the significance of the blind spot when in actual fact it has no significance at all because it does not impede our sight. Nor does the wiring of the retina, it actually helps to refresh the photo receptors from the choroid by placing them close to the blood supply. The Mueller cells then help to take all light from the retina's surface by capitilising on the total surface area which is actually an INCREDIBLE bit of genius by the inventor of your eyes because the light is collected and the nerve net that would impede it is then negated.