A liberal on this forum claimed you can not have combustion with out oxygen

[Gabriel_Bell]

Combustion? Is that how the universe accidently invented itself? If so, who invented the elements that combined for the combustion?

You are assuming that actually nothing at all existed before the creation of the universe. That cannot be proved. It seems likely that some combination of matter and energy has ALWAYS existed.

The elements arrange themselves according to attraction between negatively and positively charged particles.

What is more likely? That a certain quantity of matter and energy has always existed, or that only one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipresent being has always existed and that said creature created the entire universe out of nothing, for the purpose of creating humans on Earth, with all the stars, solar systems and galaxies created only so that the sky would be less boring.

Again the principle of Ockham's Razor states that when two theories are given as explanations, it is always wiser to choose the less complicated.

 

[Boris Norris]

You are assuming that actually nothing at all existed before the creation of the universe. That cannot be proved. It seems likely that some combination of matter and energy has ALWAYS existed.

The elements arrange themselves according to attraction between negatively and positively charged particles.

What is more likely? That a certain quantity of matter and energy has always existed, or that only one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipresent being has always existed and that said creature created the entire universe out of nothing, for the purpose of creating humans on Earth, with all the stars, solar systems and galaxies created only so that the sky would be less boring.

Again the principle of Ockham's Razor states that when two theories are given as explanations, it is always wiser to choose the less complicated.

You've got to stop giving those detailed explanation. You could easily cause him to have a anuism or coronary.

 

[mark francis]

You are assuming that actually nothing at all existed before the creation of the universe. That cannot be proved. It seems likely that some combination of matter and energy has ALWAYS existed.

The elements arrange themselves according to attraction between negatively and positively charged particles.

What is more likely? That a certain quantity of matter and energy has always existed, or that only one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipresent being has always existed and that said creature created the entire universe out of nothing, for the purpose of creating humans on Earth, with all the stars, solar systems and galaxies created only so that the sky would be less boring.

Again the principle of Ockham's Razor states that when two theories are given as explanations, it is always wiser to choose the less complicated.

Science does not support the idea that mass and energy had no beginning like you must be assuming.

 

[Boris Norris]

Science does not support the idea that mass and energy had no beginning like you must be assuming.

Ok. Show where science has agreed on that.
I know you can't.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Science does not support the idea that mass and energy had no beginning like you must be assuming

Science neither supports nor denies this. Nor does it support the existence of an eternal creator deity, either.
You are not one to be assuming that you know diddly about science.

 

[mark francis]

Science neither supports nor denies this. Nor does it support the existence of an eternal creator deity, either.
You are not one to be assuming that you know diddly about science.

In other words, science cannot speculate about what supernatural force created the universe except, in sinners' minds, to say it definitely was not God.

 

[Tripoli]

He also claims he was a teacher and I think he may have claimed he has a phd in something not sure about that one.
Any way I have worked for a chemical company that was a specialist in making small batch dangerous chems and meds we even mad lsd for the government at one time . I worked there until my job on the shuttle program started. I have experience with chemicals and my job on the shuttle programs was as a clean room supervisor and also I did field work on some projects at the 45 air space wing .

Hes full of bull and is wrong combustion is possible with out oxygen.
I just started a thread about it because he was using this as a example to prove there is no god for some reason. But I do enjoy proving all the lug nut types here wrong .

Can Fire Burn When There's No Oxygen?

Have you ever watched a piece of paper burn and asked yourself- ‘Would this be possible if there was no oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere?’

www.scienceabc.com

I had a clown once on another forum that claimed that 100% pure Oxygen would burn if you put a match to it. I think because of the Apollo astronauts that burned to death in a pure Oxygen capsule. He was a complete ***** and would not back down. Then I got banned because of his stupidity.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

In other words, science cannot speculate about what supernatural force created the universe except, in sinners' minds, to say it definitely was not God.

Nonsense! speculating about why things are an how they work is the essence of science. Science does not say "there is no god"; what science says, is "there is no PROOF that any god exists", which is not the same thing at all.

And since there is no such proof, science says that it should not be assumed by anyone that god exists when one is studying science.

 

[mark francis]

Nonsense! speculating about why things are an how they work is the essence of science. Science does not say "there is no god"; what science says, is "there is no PROOF that any god exists", which is not the same thing at all.

And since there is no such proof, science says that it should not be assumed by anyone that god exists when one is studying science.

Don't look to science if you want to find out how matter and energy originated. Science cannot help you solve that 'mystery.'

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Don't look to science if you want to find out how matter and energy originated. Science cannot help you solve that 'mystery.'

Science is the only valid way humans have ever figured out how the world works.
It makes more logical sense to assume that some constant amount of energy and mass has always existed, than there is an invisible eternal being who created everything out of nothing.

You won't look to science because you are (a) deluded and (b) too stupid to realize how deluded you are.
The Dunning Kruger Effect: too stupid to be aware of your own stupidity.

 

[mark francis]

Science is the only valid way humans have ever figured out how the world works.
It makes more logical sense to assume that some constant amount of energy and mass has always existed, than there is an invisible eternal being who created everything out of nothing.

You won't look to science because you are (a) deluded and (b) too stupid to realize how deluded you are.
The Dunning Kruger Effect: too stupid to be aware of your own stupidity.

Science cannot tell you how life began on earth because it has been banned from discussing the supernatural.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Science cannot tell you how life began on earth because it has been banned from discussing the supernatural.

There is no evidence that anything supernatural has ever existed.
Jesus cured lepers, and it was a miracle. Supposedly a supernatural event.
Like curing insanity by casting demons from a human into a herd of pigs.

But when have you seen a leper? Leprosy is easily cured and is practically extinct.

Yesterday's miracles are simply today's still unexplained phenomena.

The universe was not made for humans to understand it. There is no deliberate intent that we learn about the universe.
For centuries, we did not even try, because of silly people believing in the supernatural and miracles.

 

[pjmret]

Science cannot tell you how life began on earth because it has been banned from discussing the supernatural.

Not banned, science *****, it's outside the scope of science duh

 

[the annoying thing]

You are assuming that actually nothing at all existed before the creation of the universe. That cannot be proved. It seems likely that some combination of matter and energy has ALWAYS existed.

The elements arrange themselves according to attraction between negatively and positively charged particles.

What is more likely? That a certain quantity of matter and energy has always existed, or that only one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipresent being has always existed and that said creature created the entire universe out of nothing, for the purpose of creating humans on Earth, with all the stars, solar systems and galaxies created only so that the sky would be less boring.

Again the principle of Ockham's Razor states that when two theories are given as explanations, it is always wiser to choose the less complicated.

and you can prove there was something before the universe ?

Science is the only valid way humans have ever figured out how the world works.
It makes more logical sense to assume that some constant amount of energy and mass has always existed, than there is an invisible eternal being who created everything out of nothing.

You won't look to science because you are (a) deluded and (b) too stupid to realize how deluded you are.
The Dunning Kruger Effect: too stupid to be aware of your own stupidity.

Prove him wrong

 

[mark francis]

There is no evidence that anything supernatural has ever existed.

Just because humans cannot see the supernatural does not mean it does not exist and just because secular science cannot measure the supernatural does not prove the supernatural does not exist.