In what way are they different? There is no evidence any divine entities are real just like there is no evidence that Santa is real.

There's more evidence for Santa! He brings presents and they always appear, just as we were told ;)

The fact that you and I exist is sufficient evidence that the Creator exists.

And the fact that the creator exist is evidence that the creator’s creator exists, etc, etc.

Or is there a stop? And then what? Your stance creates more questions than it answers while introducing extra, unnecessary parameters.

> The issue I take is with the equivocation they have made. Believing in Santa Claus and believing in a divine entity are two drastically different things.

Why? The only major difference I can see is that Santa Claus is explicitly understood as a made-up story, whereas Gods are believed in by others.

So there's social proof on the side of God, but in terms of tangible evidence they don't seem any different.

The fact that you say “a Devine entity” suggests you are a monotheist. As such you are atheistic wrt many many gods. Do you take all believers in all of them equally seriously?

Moreover, what is stopping me from defining Santa Claus as a Devine being?

> Moreover, what is stopping me from defining Santa Claus as a Devine being?

Show me evidence that Santa Clause sent a message to us.

Show me evidence that your $GOD (presumably Jaweh, but then with his image altered by some additions to your holy book only part of your community accepted, the rest rejected the new prophet) has sent a message, and while you're at it, tell my all the others are not the correct messages.

To be pedantic, Santa sends me messages every year through Coco Cola commercials. But I'm going to assume you mean older messages.

> No, I wouldn’t take an adult believing in Santa Claus seriously.

Why not?