Yep I got it perfectly. And I am glad you've admitted you are agnostic. And sorry but you are twisting the term "atheist". It is lack of belief in god. If you don't believe in god without proof then you are believing by faith. As an agnostic; you don't need proof. You just don't believe because there is nothing to give you enough proof to believe otherwise. Example: I believe the earth is over 3 billion years old. In the bible; it says otherwise. I don't have enough evidence to persuade me to think differently; so I am agnostic about this claim. On the other hand... I believe in Christ Jesus being the son of God; but I don't have proof that He is God except my personal conviction. I say to myself "I just believe because I feel it in my soul!" First example is agnostic, second example is faith. Now let's take it to the no god approach... Example: I don't believe in God because there isn't any evidence for me to believe in God. <--- agnostic I believe that plasma isn't mass. <--- faith Or I believe that there are humans on other planets that share the exact same DNA as us. <---- faith
I see the source of your confusion. I originally wrote that the early universe was "LIKE A PLASMA" and you misread it to be "WAS A PLASMA" It was like a plasma in that it was so hot that matter broke down to the point there were not even subatomic particles (and hence no mass).
How is "plasma isn't mass" and "like plasma" the same? Lol. Before you back peddle too much; you may want to read the posts after. Don't dig your hole any larger.
No, that's just your naive understanding of the process. Language changes, as human experiences change and the old forms no longer inform the modern. The best dictionaries try and keep up.
I wrote in the post following the one you quoted above: "There were no photons at the instant of the big bang, nor was there plasma." I have no reason to backpedal. I wasn't the one using "mass" in one post and "matter" in another as if they're interchangeable. And what I wrote was fully accurate.
Fortunately, your "needs" are mostly irrelevant to these matters. You can't have it both ways. If you insist that all knowing has a faith component, that's fine, but you are then left with a qualitative distinction between epistemic faith and religious faith. Stanford Encyclo of Philos has a basic article on faith that may serve to broaden your grasp of the subject matter. Yes, I know, it's all black and white for you. Impressive, but seriously, you should at least be somewhat informed beyond your first person access.
Black and white? Explain how everything is black and white to me? I know you are creating this label since I'm a christian. If I'm so black and white; why do I believe the earth is over 3 billion years old? Why would I think the universe is over 13 billion years? Why do I adopt evolution? Seems your label is ignorant at best
No. I said that what I had described as "like plasma" isn't mass. I was repeating what you wrote, the word "plasma" in hopes you'd get it.
You're habit of standing up strawmen and arguing against those (and not my actual arguments) doesn't do squat, except between your ears.
There is nothing strawman on what i interpret what you wrote. In that post; you simply said "plasma is not mass. There was no plasma in the beginning". That is two entirely different statements. The back peddle is when you later tried explaining like and shit; which never was said.
Great, seems my dismissive antenna is working properly. This is bad faith. I put two questions to you in plain English, no Hyperbole at all. Instead of responding to them, you've attached yourself to two short phrases, the meaning of which you were presumably unable to determine. My questions though, are self contained. But I do think you are right. You're personally not adequate for this conversation. You're free to go now.
Not where the rules of physics don't apply. Remember a singularity has 0 size and there was no time yet (at time 0). So what was the speed of light? It could only travel 0 (inches, feet, whatever) distance because there was 0 size. What was the time? 0. What is the formula for speed? distance = rate * time 0 = rate * 0 rate = 0/0 or something indeterminate. Plug that into e=mc^2 (for c). Get back to me.
Let's refresh your stubborn mind.... "Plasma isn't mass" = one statement. "Nor was it plasma at the beginning" = another statement. This is interpreted as "There was no plasma in the beginning and plasma isn't mass anyway" But if you want to build some strawmen argument to recover from the ludicrous statement; then by all means, go right ahead.
