Jump to content

A Good Argument...


Recommended Posts

How about, "That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard."

 

Seriously, I don't waste time with Cretinists any more. Kudos to those who have the patience to deal with those morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about, "That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard."

 

Seriously, I don't waste time with Cretinists any more. Kudos to those who have the patience to deal with those morons.

 

 

First, no, it's not the dumbest. That would go to the "banana designed for humans" argument.

Secondly the "pepsi can argument" is the argument I think made famous by the christian project "Way of the Master", by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. I can't find it on the net and I was recently re-introduced to it by a project my Mom's church is doing on "Questions on God", where they try to basically prove their religion as fact. Any way most of it is just fodder for those who know how to question properly and know a little more about the bible and science. The argument is just basically saying a soda can just can't make itself, thats "silly", obviously another argument arguing contigency. I just wanted to know if there were better refutations then the one I had formed myself...

 

I'll find the Ray Comfort video and post it here in a bit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True...the banana argument wins the dumbest award. I probably should not have stunk up the thread, but that is pretty much how I answer any Creationist blather.

 

I didn't realize the Pepsi can argument was crafted by Ray Comfort. I should'a knowed. The Way of the Master...ahhhhhhh. Last time someone pulled that on me it went something like this:

 

Evangelist: Do you think you're a good person?

Me: Yes, aren't you?

Evangelist: Have you ever...

Me: Stop right there. Answer my question first. Are you a good person?

Evangelist: Well, no I'm not. No one....

Me acting horrified: You're not? Get away from me!

Evangelist: Wait!

Me: Why should I talk to you if you're not a good person! What are you going to try to do to me????

Evangelist: Wait...calm down!! I'm just trying to help...

 

That's a small sample, your mileage should you choose this vehicle, may vary.

 

 

I've done this 3 times...worked like a charm. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is just basically saying a soda can just can't make itself, thats "silly

So because a can of Pepsi can't make itself, it's reasonable to then throw up your hands and believe that there's an invisible old man with magical powers flying around in the sky, zapping things in and out of existence :twitch:

 

I guess I don't really understand the argument. Natural processes "make" things all the time (i.e. a cloud, a tree, a star, etc.). But a human made a can of Pespi, therefore God exists and Christianity is true? :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats a good refutation of the creationist's pepsi can argument?

 

Life is for the living.

 

"Way of the Master" can anything be crazier?

 

Lottsa masters have tried controlling me but they always fail because they don't know samson's secret.

 

Samson's secret: my power is in being honest and true to myself and never making false claims that I can't back up, then sticking to that come hell or high water or the crack of doom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for those who don't know:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQgAzQ_9VBY

 

 

And to not waste your time on the rest of this utter trash, the argument is 2 minutes and 39 seconds in...

 

Wow. Awsome link. I haven't laughed so hard in a while. This one is going on my favorites list. It's kind of like watching 'Reefer Madness' all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats a good refutation of the creationist's pepsi can argument?

*drool* *slobber* *slobber*? :shrug:

 

We know these things are built because we've have knowledge that humans built them. We can therefore generally recognize artificially created objects. The underwater "pyramids" of Japan are an item that are currently in question however meaning that we don't always know for certain what objects are man made and what objects are not (the general consensus is that the pyramids are natural objects).

 

So the only way, it seems, to know what objects a god could make would be to see a god make some objects and then do some comparisons. Like I said from above (and in the creationist argument) that's how it works for us. That is how we know the can didn't suddenly form itself. That is how we know the car didn't suddenly form itself. That is how we know all the objects they can ever mention didn't suddenly form themselves. Our experiences and our ability to compare.

 

Show me some gods and their creations so I can compare those items to us and our universe and I will believe them.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument is just basically saying a soda can just can't make itself, thats "silly", obviously another argument arguing contigency.

 

Answer: "Yet a more complex crystal can make itself. What's your point?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer: "Yet a more complex crystal can make itself. What's your point?"

Oh, but what made the crystal? And around it goes...

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crystal made itself. If they are stupid enough to buy the Pepsi can argument they will be too stupid to ask the only quasi rational question "who made the laws that cause a crystal to make itself?"

 

But, if they do ask the question, you could just tell them:

 

You: Crystals do in fact form on their own based on chemical bonding of attracting atoms.

 

Creationist: Well, then it must be god who created the laws that cause certain atoms to attract in the way that they do.

 

You: Sure. But then isn't it then reasonable that biological evolution is self directed by similar laws?

 

 

You won't remove god from the equation by this line of argument, but at least you will back them into a corner with their "can't form itself argument." You will also show them that evolution is actually more reasonable than they think that it is. The biggest objection for the dull of mind is that complex things cannot form on their own.

 

Crystals are an easily understood refute of this line of thinking. At least in my mind. What goes on in the mind of the creationist is anyone's guess. Probably they are like Homer Simpson. As the discussion gets complex they see visions of cupcakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I pay so little attention to Comfort and Cameron, I actually had to look this up to find out what this thread was about. Glad I did. I needed a laugh this morning. So a Pepsi can can't create itself...well, neither can a chocolate cake, so what does that prove?

 

Then to the banana argument...so then, what does an orange prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pepsi Can analogy? What a rip off this guy is (AKA, plagiarist). This is the classic Watchmaker's Argument . The answer to this goes way back, what two centuries now? :shrug: Human being's are biological organisms, not tin cans (with or without gears and cranks). Biological organisms are not created in labs, or on an assembly line in a factory. They are the result natural processes (sperm meets egg, starts a serious of events that the structure of DNA guides in the natural process).

 

The real issue for these people is understanding that order in fact does come from disorder - all the time. Here's a great look at examples of Order from Disorder in Everyday Life , and Order from Disorder in Nature.

 

The Pepsi Can argument (AKA, the Watchmaker's argument), demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding, and betrays someone trying to understand nature by arbitrarily assigning explanations rooted in superstition and ignorance, like "we felt the earth shake, so a big giant (or God) is bouncing up and down behind the mountains where we can't see him". "We couldn't have just happened", displays the same ignorance.

 

If I were lazy, I'd just answer them like this: "We are not tin cans. We have brains. If there is a God, he meant for us to use them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then to the banana argument...so then, what does an orange prove?

 

That God created baseball too. Gave us oranges to practice with until he felt we were ready for the Revelation of America's Pastime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, no, it's not the dumbest. That would go to the "banana designed for humans" argument.

Secondly the "pepsi can argument" is the argument I think made famous by the christian project "Way of the Master", by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

You do know that the Banana Argument was invented and presented by the WotM guys? With that said I think the soda can argument probably could be faulty too.

 

The argument is just basically saying a soda can just can't make itself, thats "silly", obviously another argument arguing contigency. I just wanted to know if there were better refutations then the one I had formed myself...

Ah. Then it is exactly the same argument as the Watch on the Beach argument that is about 150 years old. Nothing new then. It's just modernized.

 

Problem with the argument:

 

A soda can creation involves hundreds of people, ergo there must be hundreds of creators.

 

A soda can creation involves machines and robots, ergo, the gods must use robots.

 

And also, the creators of the soda can did not create the customers, so there are external agents involved outside of these "creators"., does it mean the spiritual world existed with being before God(s) created the world?

 

But must most importantly, the creators of a soda can does not create the matter they mold into soda can, so they don't create anything, they just reorganize structure of existing matter and energy. Ergo, God(s) can NOT create "from nothing", they must have matter and energy to reorganize to create the world.

 

So basically, the "proof" claims and demands that god must be like us, since we are like god. Doesn't that make us gods?

 

 

I'll find the Ray Comfort video and post it here in a bit...

Don't bother, it is a faulty argument.

 

The original argument is that if you find a watch on a beach, you know it is designed because it doesn't look like a rock and it has a purpose.

 

Now the problem with that argument is that for the argument to be true, the rock and the beach has to be considered chaotic and non-designed. Basically the argument say really is saying this: if the rock is not designed but you can see the watch is designed, and then from this look at the rock and see that it is also designed. Now you can see there is a bait and switch in the whole argument. To accept the watch as designed you have to accept the world as non-designed (for the comparison), and then you have to come to the conclusion the world is designed because it looks designed just like the watch. But the premise already demanded the world to be non-designed, so the logic isn't really sound here. And for the soda can it is just the same problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the problem with that argument is that for the argument to be true, the rock and the beach has to be considered chaotic and non-designed. Basically the argument say really is saying this: if the rock is not designed but you can see the watch is designed, and then from this look at the rock and see that it is also designed. Now you can see there is a bait and switch in the whole argument. To accept the watch as designed you have to accept the world as non-designed (for the comparison), and then you have to come to the conclusion the world is designed because it looks designed just like the watch. But the premise already demanded the world to be non-designed, so the logic isn't really sound here. And for the soda can it is just the same problem.

I noticed that on infotheorist's thread. He seemed to accept evolution creating random patterns in nature such as snowflakes, but then claimed we were created by evidence of complicated patterns??? He was confusing me with this because in Christianity, God created everything, so everything should be evidence of creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. How can anything in nature be "self-creating" if everything is proof of "creation". The snow flakes are created by a process in nature, it's not the same as a being with a will creates a soda-can. Btw, the universe doesn't look like a watch or a soda-can. If the universe was created like a soda-can, shouldn't it look like a soda-can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. How can anything in nature be "self-creating" if everything is proof of "creation". The snow flakes are created by a process in nature, it's not the same as a being with a will creates a soda-can. Btw, the universe doesn't look like a watch or a soda-can. If the universe was created like a soda-can, shouldn't it look like a soda-can?

Yeah...

 

It looks like it has to do with the ingrained belief that humanity is somehow alien to this universe. I wonder where that came from? :HaHa: "Swing low, sweet cheeerriought, comin' for to carry me hooooome." :grin:

 

There needs to be a shift in thinking although that will probably be hard when the very language we use creates ghosts by having a verb force action on a noun. It's snowing! What the heck is doing the snowing? :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know these things are built because we've have knowledge that humans built them. We can therefore generally recognize artificially created objects.

But mwc, they KNOW the mind of God and can recognize an artificially created organism such as a human. Wasamattu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But mwc, they KNOW the mind of God and can recognize an artificially created organism such as a human. Wasamattu?

Me notta so smart I guess. :(

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.