Common Sense Deactivated?

[james bond]

That is certainly NOT the reason to think QM is correct. The development of QM had very little to do with the BBT and was mostly driven by issues related to thermodynamics (heat capacities of gases), solid state physics, and the spectra of atoms and molecules. Later, understanding the 'particle zoo' was a driving force.

If anything, QM clarified issues in the BBT, not the other way around.



Um, no. The basic BBT is more solid than ever. The details of the CBR have verified it to a degree not even imagined 30 years ago.

>>P: That is certainly NOT the reason to think QM is correct. The development of QM had very little to do with the BBT and was mostly driven by issues related to thermodynamics (heat capacities of gases), solid state physics, and the spectra of atoms and molecules. Later, understanding the 'particle zoo' was a driving force.<<

I was talking with shunyadragon at the time and meant people believe what they can grasp. They can imagine a big explosion and the results, but it's harder to imagine one with no sound and sudden expansion. I don't think I said that's the reason to think QM is correct.

>>P: Um, no. The basic BBT is more solid than ever. The details of the CBR have verified it to a degree not even imagined 30 years ago.<<

Is BBT really more solid than ever? The two main pieces of evidence for BBT are CBR and redshift. Can you give the details briefly?

Creation scientists have gathered more evidence against BBT during that time, as well.

 

[james bond]

Further archaeological evidence to back up the Bible. While building materials does not constitute the main arguments about the pyramids nor the Tower of Babel, it has on RF and is still part of the discussion. Stone as building material came later. Thus, I present the following.

"BUILDING MATERIALS
Discussion of the building materials occupies the whole of Genesis 11:3. The first half of the verse indicates that burnt bricks are being used and the second half the verse contains an explanation by the author to those who might be unaware of the details of this "foreign" practice.

Our current knowledge of ancient architecture and industry confirms the statement made by the author. In Palestine, mud bricks (sun-dried) are first found in levels designated pre-pottery Neolithic A (8th-9th millennium BC) (Kenyon 1979: 26). This is the only type of brick found in Palestine. Kiln-fired brick is unattested. The practice was rather to use stone for the foundations and sun-dried brick for the superstructure (Kenyon 1979: 46, 87, 91, 164, etc.).

Sun-dried bricks first appear in Mesopotamia at Samarran sites Sawwan and Choga Mami (mid-6th millennium BC) (D. and J. Oates 1976: 104). Kiln-fired bricks are first noted during the late Uruk period and become more common in the Jamdet Nasr period toward the end of the fourth millennium (Finegan 1979: 8; Singer 1954: 462; cf. Salonen 1972: 72ff). Bitumen is the usual mortar used with kiln-fired bricks (cf. Woolley 1939: 99). The building technology of Palestine used a mud mortar (as indicated in our narrative). Bitumen of any grade was an expensive item (Forbes 1955: 4-22), as Singer notes:

Being expensive, it was seldom used for walls of sun-dried bricks …except to make the walls and floors of such buildings impervious to water. …It was, however, widely used in baked brick buildings. These, again because of the cost of fuel, were expensive, and were normally used only for palaces, temples, and other official buildings. The low firing temperature of the bricks (550-600 degrees C.) resulted in a high porosity; thus the mastic was freely absorbed and gave such strength that the walls made of it are stronger than rock and any kind of iron (1954: 250-54).

Not only is the description of the building materials an accurate reflection of a true distinction between Israelite and Mesopotamian building methods, but it also gives us some important information. Whole cities were not generally built of these materials. Even ziggurats themselves only used burnt brick and bitumen for the outer layers while using regular sun-dried mud brick for the inner layers. The core was then filled with dirt.13 The mention of the expensive building materials would thus suggest that the discussion is focusing on public buildings.

Public buildings were frequently of either religious or administrative importance and were often grouped together in one section of the settlement. They became the focal point for the centralization of wealth and for the preservation of many aspects of the individual culture. It was the public sector of the city that was fortified and contained the stores of grain. Thus Hilprecht notes…

The temple complex of Nippur, with the dwellings of numerous officials, embraced the whole eastern half of the city, an area of almost 80 acres. The so-called inner and outer walls of Nippur cannot refer to the whole city, as one would have supposed from the inscriptions, but in accordance with the topographical evidence must be limited to the Temple of Bel (even to the exclusion of the temple library) (1904: 14-15).

Although it is possible that the author wants to make the point that this endeavor was attempting to build an entire city of the most expensive materials, I find it more plausible that the public sector of the city is intended. In the end, this is probably a difference without a distinction, for the earliest "cities" were simply the administrative buildings.

Thus, when the people in Genesis 11 speak of building a city, they are most likely not referring to building of a residential settlement, but would have in mind the building of public buildings, which in ancient Mesopotamia would be largely represented by the temple complex. C.J. Gadd, writing of Early Dynastic times, observes that "the distinction of city and temple becomes dim, for one was only an agglomeration of the other" (CAH3 I, 2: 128). The focus of any major temple complex would have been the ziggurat, which leads us into the next section."

Is there Archaeological Evidence for the Tower of Babel?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Further archaeological evidence to back up the Bible. While building materials does not constitute the main arguments about the pyramids nor the Tower of Babel, it has on RF and is still part of the discussion. Stone as building material came later. Thus, I present the following.

"BUILDING MATERIALS
Discussion of the building materials occupies the whole of Genesis 11:3. The first half of the verse indicates that burnt bricks are being used and the second half the verse contains an explanation by the author to those who might be unaware of the details of this "foreign" practice.

Our current knowledge of ancient architecture and industry confirms the statement made by the author. In Palestine, mud bricks (sun-dried) are first found in levels designated pre-pottery Neolithic A (8th-9th millennium BC) (Kenyon 1979: 26). This is the only type of brick found in Palestine. Kiln-fired brick is unattested. The practice was rather to use stone for the foundations and sun-dried brick for the superstructure (Kenyon 1979: 46, 87, 91, 164, etc.).

Sun-dried bricks first appear in Mesopotamia at Samarran sites Sawwan and Choga Mami (mid-6th millennium BC) (D. and J. Oates 1976: 104). Kiln-fired bricks are first noted during the late Uruk period and become more common in the Jamdet Nasr period toward the end of the fourth millennium (Finegan 1979: 8; Singer 1954: 462; cf. Salonen 1972: 72ff). Bitumen is the usual mortar used with kiln-fired bricks (cf. Woolley 1939: 99). The building technology of Palestine used a mud mortar (as indicated in our narrative). Bitumen of any grade was an expensive item (Forbes 1955: 4-22), as Singer notes:

Being expensive, it was seldom used for walls of sun-dried bricks …except to make the walls and floors of such buildings impervious to water. …It was, however, widely used in baked brick buildings. These, again because of the cost of fuel, were expensive, and were normally used only for palaces, temples, and other official buildings. The low firing temperature of the bricks (550-600 degrees C.) resulted in a high porosity; thus the mastic was freely absorbed and gave such strength that the walls made of it are stronger than rock and any kind of iron (1954: 250-54).

Not only is the description of the building materials an accurate reflection of a true distinction between Israelite and Mesopotamian building methods, but it also gives us some important information. Whole cities were not generally built of these materials. Even ziggurats themselves only used burnt brick and bitumen for the outer layers while using regular sun-dried mud brick for the inner layers. The core was then filled with dirt.13 The mention of the expensive building materials would thus suggest that the discussion is focusing on public buildings.

Public buildings were frequently of either religious or administrative importance and were often grouped together in one section of the settlement. They became the focal point for the centralization of wealth and for the preservation of many aspects of the individual culture. It was the public sector of the city that was fortified and contained the stores of grain. Thus Hilprecht notes…

The temple complex of Nippur, with the dwellings of numerous officials, embraced the whole eastern half of the city, an area of almost 80 acres. The so-called inner and outer walls of Nippur cannot refer to the whole city, as one would have supposed from the inscriptions, but in accordance with the topographical evidence must be limited to the Temple of Bel (even to the exclusion of the temple library) (1904: 14-15).

Although it is possible that the author wants to make the point that this endeavor was attempting to build an entire city of the most expensive materials, I find it more plausible that the public sector of the city is intended. In the end, this is probably a difference without a distinction, for the earliest "cities" were simply the administrative buildings.

Thus, when the people in Genesis 11 speak of building a city, they are most likely not referring to building of a residential settlement, but would have in mind the building of public buildings, which in ancient Mesopotamia would be largely represented by the temple complex. C.J. Gadd, writing of Early Dynastic times, observes that "the distinction of city and temple becomes dim, for one was only an agglomeration of the other" (CAH3 I, 2: 128). The focus of any major temple complex would have been the ziggurat, which leads us into the next section."

Is there Archaeological Evidence for the Tower of Babel?

Grasping at straws does not make a hand waving explanation "evidence". Did they bother to put their idea through peer review? And of course I mean real peer review where it will be judged upon the basis of the evidence regardless of religious beliefs. If it was you might have a point. If it was not the article is almost certainly wrong. The only reason to avoid peer review is if one fears that one is wrong and that happens mostly with the purveyors of woo woo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cosmology. Already explained as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing. People believe quantum mechanics or quantum physics is true based on it being part of the BBT. The BBT is quickly falling out of favor and being replaced by something else. The BBT is cosmology, too.

Kalam's argument doesn't get you to a God. Nor does it explain away the inconsistency in your logic.

Can you define "nothing?" How do we examine "nothing?"

 

[james bond]

Kalam's argument doesn't get you to a God. Nor does it explain away the inconsistency in your logic.

Can you define "nothing?" How do we examine "nothing?"

Of course it does. It's cosmological.

"Nothing" isn't my term. It's Stephen Hawking from which I get this nothing as in something is greater than nothing. That's part common sense, too. Merriam-Webster backs me up if you want definition of nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it does. It's cosmological.

"Nothing" isn't my term. It's Stephen Hawking from which I get this nothing as in something is greater than nothing. That's part common sense, too. Merriam-Webster backs me up if you want definition of nothing.

Nope. The Kalam Cosmological Argument simply states that the beginning of our universe as we know it had a cause. It does not tell us what that cause was. Those that use it as an argument for god do so on the basis of an argument from ignorance. Their argument essentially states

"You don't know what that cause is, therefore god".


How do you think that it gives "god" as an answer?

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. You didn't create an atom just like you didn't create hydrogen. Otherwise, it would solve the colonization problem of the moon. Instead of arguing about atheist scientists' semantics and your FAITH, then let's talk about what atheist scientists have done with this. Can we colonize the moon? Can I just create oxygen when I'm diving? The insurmountable something greater than nothing problem keeps getting in the way.

Yes, we started from a hydrogen atom. That we did not create. I agree. But from that we created an anti-hydrogen atom. Nothing in the anti-hydrogen atom was there in the original materials. NOTHING. And that *is* creation, by standard definitions.

>>P: Then the creationists were simply wrong.<<

I doubt it since it is written in the Bible.
"The Tower of Babel

11 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in zthe land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, aand bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower bwith its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” 5 And cthe Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, dlet us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So ethe Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called fBabel, because there the Lord confused1 the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

I'll stick by what they say. They lacked stone at the time, so the Egyptians had to make the pyramids from baked clay and mud with pitch. Later pyramids were made of stone. Does this contradict atheist scientists' hypotheses? Let me guess. It's based on uniformitarianism?

Given that the pyramids *were made out of stone*, I would say that the Egyptians had stone technology. And yes,they also had brick technology. They are quite different.

Your quote about the Tower of Babel is irrelevant since it isn't Egyptian, but Mesopotamian. The ziggurats of Mesopotamia *were* made of brick.

And again, we know the stone quarries that were used by the Egyptians. We know the progression *and* we have the records in the pyramids themselves about how it was all done.

As for the timing, the stories of the Egyptians in the Bible are from *long* after the build pyramids. At *best* they come from the second intermediate period while the pyramids were built during the Old kingdom.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it does. It's cosmological.

"Nothing" isn't my term. It's Stephen Hawking from which I get this nothing as in something is greater than nothing. That's part common sense, too. Merriam-Webster backs me up if you want definition of nothing.

Nothing, meaning there was no matter, does allow for a development where there *is* matter.

 

[james bond]

Yes, we started from a hydrogen atom. That we did not create. I agree. But from that we created an anti-hydrogen atom. Nothing in the anti-hydrogen atom was there in the original materials. NOTHING. And that *is* creation, by standard definitions.

So, I was right about the H. You try very hard to make your case, but do not answer my IMPORTANT question as to what did this anti-hydrogen atom lead to? I could just as well mention the exorbitant cost to produce it. Once you mentioned anti-matter, I knew it had to be CERN or some group that could raise the money and had the ability to produce the particles and equipment to do it. Not something I would to expect to see everyday or as a natural occurrence even once. Thus, I asked you what did anti-hydrogen it lead to? I would say nothing as something is greater than nothing as in what Stephen Hawking wants to know. It's just temporary as we know quantum physics subatomic particles just pop in and out of existence, i.e. they have extremely short lifespans (?).

Given that the pyramids *were made out of stone*, I would say that the Egyptians had stone technology. And yes,they also had brick technology. They are quite different.

Your quote about the Tower of Babel is irrelevant since it isn't Egyptian, but Mesopotamian. The ziggurats of Mesopotamia *were* made of brick.

And again, we know the stone quarries that were used by the Egyptians. We know the progression *and* we have the records in the pyramids themselves about how it was all done.

As for the timing, the stories of the Egyptians in the Bible are from *long* after the build pyramids. At *best* they come from the second intermediate period while the pyramids were built during the Old kingdom.

As for the Tower of Babel, the location does seem to be in northern Mesopotamia per Answers in Genesis, but there seems to be a debate about it -- Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel? . That said, the ziggurat construction at the time pointed to similar pyramid construction in early Egypt which I was referring to during the 3rd Dynasty

. The pyramids then were stepped pyramids built of the bricks I mentioned. Remember the mastabas? You should know that construction of the later smooth pyramid of stone had "evolved" as atheist scientists like to say; It's stepwise refinement. Anyway, it is more things we learn from the Tower of Babel in the Bible related to building materials. Another example of how geology and ancient architecture backs the Bible up .

Egypt: History - Pharaonic Dynasty IIV (Third Dynasty)

 

[Polymath257]

So, I was right about the H. You try very hard to make your case, but do not answer my IMPORTANT question as to what did this anti-hydrogen atom lead to? I could just as well mention the exorbitant cost to produce it. Once you mentioned anti-matter, I knew it had to be CERN or some group that could raise the money and had the ability to produce the particles and equipment to do it. Not something I would to expect to see everyday or as a natural occurrence even once. Thus, I asked you what did anti-hydrogen it lead to? I would say nothing as something is greater than nothing as in what Stephen Hawking wants to know. It's just temporary as we know quantum physics subatomic particles just pop in and out of existence, i.e. they have extremely short lifespans (?).

Yes, once again, you are right that we started with something.

That doens't mean that something else wasn't created.

The anti-hydrogen produced energy when it combined with ordinary matter (plus a lot of other particles). But it would have been stable if it didn't come into contact with ordinary matter. But I fail to see how that negates that it was created.

As for the Tower of Babel, the location does seem to be in northern Mesopotamia per Answers in Genesis, but there seems to be a debate about it -- Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel? . However, the ziggurat construction at the time pointed to similar pyramid construction in early Egypt which I was referring to during the 3rd Dynasty

. The pyramids then were stepped pyramids built of the bricks I mentioned. You should know that construction of the later smooth pyramid of stone had "evolved." Anyway, more things we learn from the Tower of Babel in the Bible and geology and ancient architecture backs it up .

No, the pyramid of Djoser is made of stone not brick:

Pyramid of Djoser - Wikipedia

"This first Egyptian pyramid consisted of six mastabas (of decreasing size) built atop one another in what were clearly revisions and developments of the original plan. The pyramid originally stood 62 metres (203 ft) tall, with a base of 109 m × 125 m (358 ft × 410 ft) and was clad in polished white limestone.[3] The step pyramid (or proto-pyramid) is considered to be the earliest large-scale cut stone construction,[4]"

 

[james bond]

Nothing, meaning there was no matter, does allow for a development where there *is* matter.

Isn't this anti-matter temporary though? What type of matter are you referring to? Matter or anti-matter since you brought it up. I don't think one can exist with the other as something is greater than nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't this anti-matter temporary though? What type of matter are you referring to? Matter or anti-matter since you brought it up. I don't think one can exist with the other as something is greater than nothing.

We started with matter. We created anti-matter through a process involving matter. Anti-matter like this is temporary only because if annihilates when it comes into contact with ordinary matter (and vice versa, but there is more matter around than anti-matter).

Again, you haven't addressed the central point that this anti-matter was *created* by any reasonable definition of the term 'created'.

And the material you quoted was NOT the situation we were discussing where *humans* created anti-matter. it addressed the issue of whether 'nothing' can produce 'something'.

 

[james bond]

No, the pyramid of Djoser is made of stone not brick:

Pyramid of Djoser - Wikipedia

"This first Egyptian pyramid consisted of six mastabas (of decreasing size) built atop one another in what were clearly revisions and developments of the original plan. The pyramid originally stood 62 metres (203 ft) tall, with a base of 109 m × 125 m (358 ft × 410 ft) and was clad in polished white limestone.[3] The step pyramid (or proto-pyramid) is considered to be the earliest large-scale cut stone construction,[4]"

I suppose it depends on who one asks as there were mastabas created by Imhotepin before Djoser according to thought.co. Ironically, he was a polymath. Ancient Egyptian history is muddled.

Ancient Egyptian History: Mastabas, the Original Pyramids

 

[james bond]

We started with matter. We created anti-matter through a process involving matter. Anti-matter like this is temporary only because if annihilates when it comes into contact with ordinary matter (and vice versa, but there is more matter around than anti-matter).

Again, you haven't addressed the central point that this anti-matter was *created* by any reasonable definition of the term 'created'.

And the material you quoted was NOT the situation we were discussing where *humans* created anti-matter. it addressed the issue of whether 'nothing' can produce 'something'.

I said I didn't want to get into defining "created" as it is a semantic argument and has emotional meaning to an atheist scientist in this regard. Surely, the atheist scientist wants to claim that they created something even though we can't see it. It wouldn't be the same as how God created the universe although with man he used existing materials (which he created from nothing). Thus, I raised the question of where did this lead to?

And the material you quoted was NOT the situation we were discussing where *humans* created anti-matter. it addressed the issue of whether 'nothing' can produce 'something'.

I have to run. Let's discuss later.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose it depends on who one asks as there were mastabas created by Imhotepin before Djoser according to thought.co. Ironically, he was a polymath. Ancient Egyptian history is muddled.

Ancient Egyptian History: Mastabas, the Original Pyramids

Imhotep was the designer, Djoser was the pharaoh for whom the pyramid was designed.

But, again, it is made of *stone*, not bricks made as you suggested.

 

[Polymath257]

I said I didn't want to get into defining "created" as it is a semantic argument and has emotional meaning to an atheist scientist in this regard. Surely, the atheist scientist wants to claim that they created something even though we can't see it. It wouldn't be the same as how God created the universe although with man he used existing materials (which he created from nothing). Thus, I raised the question of where did this lead to?

You were the one that claimed we have not created atoms. But we clearly *have*. Yes, we created them out of previously existing materials and natural processes. But that doesn't mean they were not created. We can say an artist creates a painting even though the paints existed beforehand.

When you say that we cannot 'see' what was created, are you saying the scientists lied about producing gold atoms? or anti-hydrogen? Are you saying such were NOT produced?

What it 'lead to' was a better understanding of matter, anti-matter, and energy.

I have to run. Let's discuss later.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it does. It's cosmological.

Please tell me that's a joke.

"Nothing" isn't my term. It's Stephen Hawking from which I get this nothing as in something is greater than nothing. That's part common sense, too. Merriam-Webster backs me up if you want definition of nothing.

I don't care whose term you think it is. You used it when you said, "The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing."

So again I ask, what's your definition of nothing and how do we examine nothing?

You still haven't addressed the inconsistency in your logic, which was my main point of contention.

 

[james bond]

No, the pyramid of Djoser is made of stone not brick:

Pyramid of Djoser - Wikipedia

"This first Egyptian pyramid consisted of six mastabas (of decreasing size) built atop one another in what were clearly revisions and developments of the original plan. The pyramid originally stood 62 metres (203 ft) tall, with a base of 109 m × 125 m (358 ft × 410 ft) and was clad in polished white limestone.[3] The step pyramid (or proto-pyramid) is considered to be the earliest large-scale cut stone construction,[4]"

The mastabas or stepped pyramids for the pharoahs before Djoser used baked bricks as per the thought.co article entitled "Ancient Egyptian History: Mastabas, the Original Pyramids. Find out more about the original Egyptian pyramid." Ancient Egyptian History: Mastabas, the Original Pyramids

Again, my main topic wasn't the building materials, but the the topic of the Tower of Babel as a ziggurat being formed by mastabas as described in Genesis 11:1-9. Now, we all know ad nauseum that Djoser was the first pyramid made of stone thanks to you. I present the thought.co article which sees it differently.

 

[james bond]

You were the one that claimed we have not created atoms. But we clearly *have*. Yes, we created them out of previously existing materials and natural processes. But that doesn't mean they were not created. We can say an artist creates a painting even though the paints existed beforehand.

When you say that we cannot 'see' what was created, are you saying the scientists lied about producing gold atoms? or anti-hydrogen? Are you saying such were NOT produced?

What it 'lead to' was a better understanding of matter, anti-matter, and energy.

I think you are ignoring the main point which is how God created atoms from nothing. This is the supernatural. This is the miracle. This is why something is greater than nothing. I think you should learn more about the Bible because clearly you are jaded to the point of man's limitations. You were wrong in thinking man created atoms from nothing, but now you claim "energy" which isn't much for the ginormous money spent. I don't think it led to anything because the antimatter was annihilated immediately. Moreover, this antimatter which you claim to be created by man was found elsewhere in space. Thus, how could man claim that he created antimatter when it was already in nature? This would be a case of a failed patent claim which yours is.

 

[james bond]

Please tell me that's a joke.

I can't help it if you can't read and conveniently took it out in your post. That's disingenuous.

I don't care whose term you think it is. You used it when you said, "The universe can't come from nothing because something is greater than nothing."

So again I ask, what's your definition of nothing and how do we examine nothing?

You still haven't addressed the inconsistency in your logic, which was my main point of contention.

Well, you should care as it will become important after you die.

Is it really that hard for you to put 2 + 2 together? And you're asking your question to wrong person in regards to something is greater than nothing. My side is the something side. Why don't you write Stephen Hawking and ask him what the nothing is? This also points out that you have "nothing" on the brain ha ha.