From here:

"The yulist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that Santa does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of Santa. However, when we employ the word "prove", we do not mean that Santa's existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the yulist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for for the existence of Santa - a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of Santa, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based." <snip cosmological argument>

I was going to take time to refute this statement, just to stretch my god-denying muscles, but it is so absurd on its face that that would really give it more credit than it is due. I will simply point out - the feelings of theologians aside - that uncaused effects are a fact of the quantum world.