How is God any different than Santa Claus?
They differ in two ways. The arguments and evidence offered for each are different; and adults who believe in Santa Claus are commonly considered insane instead of pious (while for God it's the other way around).
This is sort of an odd question as there are so many very obvious differences. For example, Santa wears a red hat, whereas God doesn't have a physical head to put a hat onto. I don't know of any religion or worldview that claims that God climbs in and out of chimneys, either.
There is, in this question, an implicit attack on theism. However, it is quite possibly one of the silliest attacks on theism I have ever encountered, and I encounter it rather frequently.
The argument really seems to flow as follows:
1. Santa Claus doesn't exist.
2. Therefore God doesn't exist.
This argument is a weak analogy fallacy and a great example of poor reasoning. Even if we grant the single premise, that Santa doesn't exist, there is absolutely no way in which the conclusion, namely that God doesn't exist, follows from it.
If this argument were actually valid, one could construct any number of like arguments that would then also be valid. For example:
1. The Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
2. Therefore Barack Obama doesn't exist.
This second argument is no less valid than the first one presented above. Both arguments are plainly false.
Advancing this very brand of incoherent nonsense is a frequently used anti-theistic tactic employed by Atheists the world over. A prime example of this tactic in use is in the very name of the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", a perfect example of faulty logic at work...
The reality is that if there were no God it would be impossible to even conceive of such a concept as "difference", and neither would there be anyone around to conceive of it.
If, as you claim, morality is obeying god, how do you know that obeying god is good? Isn't that totally circular?
Are all presuppositions equally valid? If not, how does one determine which are more valid than others?
Isn't it the case that, rather than presupposing god as it claims to, the presuppositional view actually presupposes logic and reason?
What's an easy way to demonstrate that unitarianism is false?
Can you know anything independently of what god has revealed to you?