WE don't need God. All we need is nutty physics that we can call genius
in [Relativity]
|
From: Olrik on 3 Jun 2010 00:13 Le 2010-06-02 02:07, BURT a �crit : > On May 31, 9:40 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Le 2010-06-01 00:35, BURT a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 31, 9:21 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a �crit : >> >>>>> Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as >>>>> genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his >>>>> imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started >>>>> without God. >> >>>> Define that "god" thing you're talking about. >> >>>>> He has gotten away with it. He is the biggest looser >>>>> and the world put him on the top of science. Shows you that all of them >>>>> are good for nothing. The world needs an inferior genius to emulate. >> >>>>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> God can't be defined. >> >> So the whole concept is useless. > > You cannot limit God to a concept. I just did. "god" is nothing **but** a concept. A cheap and easy, at that. >>> But as Stephen Hawking said we don't need Him. >> >> Why do you care about Stephen Hawking? Did he kill your dog? Stick to >> ideas, not people. >> >> Olrik- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > NO. I am an equal opportunity offender. Stephen Hawking's MO is > intimidation. He is an inferior genius and the world has elevated him > to the top of science. The world is as inferior as its hero. They made > him into God. No. He's a very good physicist, that's all. But his disease made him popular, sad to say. > So who is greater? Isnt the God maker superior to the > God he made? Did Hawking made a "god"???? > That's the way it works with the world and science. You're mistaken, ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it? Olrik > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 3 Jun 2010 00:40 On Jun 2, 9:13 pm, Olrik <olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Le 2010-06-02 02:07, BURT a écrit : > > > > > > > On May 31, 9:40 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Le 2010-06-01 00:35, BURT a écrit : > > >>> On May 31, 9:21 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a écrit : > > >>>>> Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as > >>>>> genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his > >>>>> imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started > >>>>> without God. > > >>>> Define that "god" thing you're talking about. > > >>>>> He has gotten away with it. He is the biggest looser > >>>>> and the world put him on the top of science. Shows you that all of them > >>>>> are good for nothing. The world needs an inferior genius to emulate.. > > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> God can't be defined. > > >> So the whole concept is useless. > > > You cannot limit God to a concept. > > I just did. "god" is nothing **but** a concept. A cheap and easy, at that.. > > >>> But as Stephen Hawking said we don't need Him. > > >> Why do you care about Stephen Hawking? Did he kill your dog? Stick to > >> ideas, not people. > > >> Olrik- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > NO. I am an equal opportunity offender. Stephen Hawking's MO is > > intimidation. He is an inferior genius and the world has elevated him > > to the top of science. The world is as inferior as its hero. They made > > him into God. > > No. He's a very good physicist, that's all. But his disease made him > popular, sad to say. > > > So who is greater? Isnt the God maker superior to the > > God he made? > > Did Hawking made a "god"???? > > > That's the way it works with the world and science. > > You're mistaken, ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it? It's neither. You are a jackass. Mitch Raemsch > > Olrik > > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Olrik on 3 Jun 2010 00:53 Le 2010-06-03 00:40, BURT a �crit : > On Jun 2, 9:13 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Le 2010-06-02 02:07, BURT a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 31, 9:40 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Le 2010-06-01 00:35, BURT a �crit : >> >>>>> On May 31, 9:21 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a �crit : >> >>>>>>> Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as >>>>>>> genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his >>>>>>> imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started >>>>>>> without God. >> >>>>>> Define that "god" thing you're talking about. >> >>>>>>> He has gotten away with it. He is the biggest looser >>>>>>> and the world put him on the top of science. Shows you that all of them >>>>>>> are good for nothing. The world needs an inferior genius to emulate. >> >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> God can't be defined. >> >>>> So the whole concept is useless. >> >>> You cannot limit God to a concept. >> >> I just did. "god" is nothing **but** a concept. A cheap and easy, at that. >> >>>>> But as Stephen Hawking said we don't need Him. >> >>>> Why do you care about Stephen Hawking? Did he kill your dog? Stick to >>>> ideas, not people. >> >>>> Olrik- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> NO. I am an equal opportunity offender. Stephen Hawking's MO is >>> intimidation. He is an inferior genius and the world has elevated him >>> to the top of science. The world is as inferior as its hero. They made >>> him into God. >> >> No. He's a very good physicist, that's all. But his disease made him >> popular, sad to say. >> >>> So who is greater? Isnt the God maker superior to the >>> God he made? >> >> Did Hawking made a "god"???? >> >>> That's the way it works with the world and science. >> >> You're mistaken, ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it? > > It's neither. You willfully ignore reality in favour of fantasy. You're a defective person. Olrik > You are a jackass. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: Richo on 4 Jun 2010 03:03 On Jun 1, 2:28 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 11:21 pm, Olrik <olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a écrit : > > > > Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as > > > genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his > > > imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started > > > without God. > > > Define that "god" thing you're talking about. > > God and the Universe are identical concepts. Not to me they arent. You dont need to believe in the universe or pray to it or worship it - for example. Mark.
From: BURT on 4 Jun 2010 14:23
On Jun 2, 9:53 pm, Olrik <olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Le 2010-06-03 00:40, BURT a crit : > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 9:13 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Le 2010-06-02 02:07, BURT a crit : > > >>> On May 31, 9:40 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Le 2010-06-01 00:35, BURT a crit : > > >>>>> On May 31, 9:21 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Le 2010-05-31 23:55, BURT a crit : > > >>>>>>> Of course Hawking's atheist science uses ideas that will pass as > >>>>>>> genius but really are far from it. They are nothing more than his > >>>>>>> imagination. And he uses them to define that the universe started > >>>>>>> without God. > > >>>>>> Define that "god" thing you're talking about. > > >>>>>>> He has gotten away with it. He is the biggest looser > >>>>>>> and the world put him on the top of science. Shows you that all of them > >>>>>>> are good for nothing. The world needs an inferior genius to emulate. > > >>>>>>> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>> God can't be defined. > > >>>> So the whole concept is useless. > > >>> You cannot limit God to a concept. > > >> I just did. "god" is nothing **but** a concept. A cheap and easy, at that. > > >>>>> But as Stephen Hawking said we don't need Him. > > >>>> Why do you care about Stephen Hawking? Did he kill your dog? Stick to > >>>> ideas, not people. > > >>>> Olrik- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> NO. I am an equal opportunity offender. Stephen Hawking's MO is > >>> intimidation. He is an inferior genius and the world has elevated him > >>> to the top of science. The world is as inferior as its hero. They made > >>> him into God. > > >> No. He's a very good physicist, that's all. But his disease made him > >> popular, sad to say. > > >>> So who is greater? Isnt the God maker superior to the > >>> God he made? > > >> Did Hawking made a "god"???? > > >>> That's the way it works with the world and science. > > >> You're mistaken, ignorant, or dishonest. Which one is it? > > > It's neither. > > You willfully ignore reality in favour of fantasy. You're a defective > person. > > Olrik > > > > > You are a jackass. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. You have reality mistaken. You don't know reality from a whole in a wall. Mitch Raemsch |