First, I blame Tim Allen for my personal misspelling of Santa Claus. I add the "e" almost every time. It usually takes someone else to write it before I realize what I've done.

It's fair to say that neither of those characters have the emotional weight attached to them that a personal deity has. Nor the kind of "ultimate" status that allows for a cosmological or teleological argument.

Certainly not in the sense that "that price is unreasonable" or "you're being unreasonable" they're not. But "reason" does tend to move in the direction of knowable facts.

You may not find the answer satisfactory, but science does make for an extremely successful epistemology. More successful, in fact, than any other by far. I'm guessing the divide you feel between yourself and rationalists is the conclusion that there is no supernatural. My personal definition (by no means exhaustive or definitive) of "reasonable" includes the rejection of the supernatural as unfounded fiction.

I'm guessing that in your case, the supernatural only gets to have one element, and that's a personal god. Does anyone ever address other gods that have been worshipped? Or are they simply the "wrong" gods, like an attempt at doing religion right, and failing? (There's no counter-punch there - I'm just asking your personal opinion.)