Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

Point me to a single Flat Earther on this website who has argued based on the Bible. You can't!

Racism is a bannable offense on the website, to contradict your "Iranian" example, so no Flat Earther here has ever attacked someone because of their nationality or ethnicity.

How dare you misrepresent the views and attitudes of this organisation so profoundly.

It's more fun the other way around...

The earth is flat because you can't spell and are probably iranian so automatically wrong. Also evidence which only i have seen proves it is flat. It is flat because it says so in the Bible which was written a long time ago by very clever people. Cleverer than you. There are a great many members of the FES and so it must be flat. If I look out of my window it is flat. You cannot prove that the earth is flat because to do so you would need to go into outer space which is impossible because the earth is flat. The eart his flat because the earth is special. The earth is flat because I think it would look nicer. The earth is flat because I say so OK? The earth is flat because most geese are white. The earth is flat because people would fall off the bottom due to "gravity" if it were round.

Point me to a single Flat Earther on this website who has argued based on the Bible. You can't!

Point me to a single Flat Earther on this website who has argued based on the Bible. You can't!

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2009, 01:14:10 PM

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

So what? Newton argued for this theories on a scientific basis as well as religious. Einstein kept mumbling something about how God does not play dice with the universe when speaking on quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has one-on-one with the Pope for scientific advice.

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2009, 01:14:10 PM

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

So what? Newton argued for this theories on a scientific basis as well as religious. Einstein kept mumbling something about how God does not play dice with the universe when speaking on quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has one-on-one with the Pope for scientific advice.

Point me to a single Flat Earther on this website who has argued based on the Bible. You can't!

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2009, 01:14:10 PM

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

So what? Newton argued for this theories on a scientific basis as well as religious. Einstein kept mumbling something about how God does not play dice with the universe as his proof against quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has one-on-one with the Pope for scientific advice.

Quote from: markjo on June 06, 2009, 01:14:10 PM

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

So what? Newton argued for this theories on a scientific basis as well as religious. Einstein kept mumbling something about how God does not play dice with the universe as his proof against quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has one-on-one with the Pope for scientific advice.

Dear The Earth is a Sphere,

I'm an atheist myself, but if you truly held the word of the bible with any modicum of regard you would not only disbelieve in evolution, but the Round Earth as well.  For example, these are direct quotes from the bible:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." --Isa. 40:22

"In the heavens hath He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the end of it." --Psalms xix., 4-6.

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also, and set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth."--Genesis i., 16-17.

"That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" --Job 38:13

"O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." --Jeremiah 16:19

There are plenty more where these come from. These quotes are very specific and can only imply a Flat Earth. A true Christian would never disregard his holy book as nothing more than a collection of frivolous analogies. I sincerely suggest that you sit down and reexamine yourself and your devotion to your religion.
? Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 10:18:40 PM by Tom Bishop ?    

And considering how this has now sat for two days with no response, I think that your suspicion is correct.

Really Flat-Earthers, if you want to convince people of your position, why not argue for it logically instead of attacking your opposition and picking at minor points while ignoring the major arguments?

Tom, either stay on topic or butt out.  Dogplatter asked for someone to identify FE'ers that have used the bible as a reference.  His question has been answered.  If FE'ers (including Rowbotham) can argue using religion, then why can't RE'ers?

You declared yourself to be an atheist in one of the Biblical threads I posted. Would you like me to show it to you?

None of those people mention the Bible as a source for their scientific theories. Indeed even Pope John Paul II conceded that religion and science can work together but cannot explain eachother. Science can explain the Heavens and religion explains how to get there.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2009, 03:21:21 AM

Your pinnacles of science all used religion as a tool for "proof" that their theories were correct.

LOL. But no.

IF you can show me where Newton, or Einstein, said "This conclusively proves everything in the scriptures is true". Then you might have some kind of a point.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 10, 2009, 03:39:12 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2009, 03:21:21 AM

Your pinnacles of science all used religion as a tool for "proof" that their theories were correct.

LOL. But no.

IF you can show me where Newton, or Einstein, said "This conclusively proves everything in the scriptures is true". Then you might have some kind of a point.

http://www.usislam.org/god/newtongod.htm :

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) used the avenues of science and logic to achieve total conviction in God. Newton began with an attempt to explain the universe, with God as the Creator of all the physical laws that govern the universe. Newton believed that all natural laws are the effects with God as the only Cause of all actions. In fact, he believed that gravity is a divine action; in effect, a stone fell because God's finger was pushing it down.

As Newton was investigating the universe, he became convinced that he had a solid proof of God's existence. He wrote "Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine power it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to an intelligent Agent." God who had designed all this so perfectly, had to be a supremely intelligent "Mechanick" and extremely powerful to manage this huge universe.

In Newton's Principia, he concluded that humans know God only by examining the evidences of His creations:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfection; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion; for we adore him as his servants."

--------

"It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that these primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation."

- Sir Isaac Newton
Opticks (1730), 344

Well, Tom, I don't see anything in that entire quote about scripture. In fact, the part that I  bolded seems to indicate that Newton would reject scripture at face value in favor of scientific investigation, observation, and experimentation of God's creations. Remember, God is not synonymous with scripture.

It says right there that Newton created his science in an attempt to prove the existence of God.

The fact that his "laws" fail to predict anything in the universe and have been replaced with convoluted models based on fiction and unknowns says a lot.

But nothing about showing the bible should be taken literately.

His laws predict the Moon will orbit the Earth, and it seems to be doing that.

Quote

His laws predict the Moon will orbit the Earth, and it seems to be doing that.

No they don't. No one can predict precisely where the moon will be in the sky this time tomorrow using Newtonian gravity alone. The position of the moon can only be predicted by past patterns.

Quote from: Starbuck on June 10, 2009, 10:14:34 AM

Well, Tom, I don't see anything in that entire quote about scripture. In fact, the part that I  bolded seems to indicate that Newton would reject scripture at face value in favor of scientific investigation, observation, and experimentation of God's creations. Remember, God is not synonymous with scripture.

It says right there that Newton created his science in an attempt to prove the existence of God. His work was based more on "what would God do" rather than "what's really happening".

The fact that his "laws" fail to predict anything in the universe and have been replaced with convoluted models based on fiction and unknowns says a lot.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) used the avenues of science and logic to achieve total conviction in God. Newton began with an attempt to explain the universe, with God as the Creator of all the physical laws that govern the universe. Newton believed that all natural laws are the effects with God as the only Cause of all actions. In fact, he believed that gravity is a divine action; in effect, a stone fell because God's finger was pushing it down.
..
..
..

Maybe you don't understand what the word "synonymous" means. Fair enough. I'll spoon feed it to you. Believing in God is not the same thing as agreeing with scripture. It is possible to believe in God without believing in what scripture says. The original question challenged you to show where Newton or Einstein claimed that their discoveries validated scriptures, not God. You pointed out how Newton's discoveries validated God. So, basically, you have not even addressed the question at all.

It's the scientist's work (not the scientist) that must stand up by itself.  It is logically fine for a scientist to believe in God, simply because God's existence cannot be disproved.

Does anyone here even remember the OP?

Does anyone here know what a fallacy is?