Again, here's what was in my first post:
I believe in a round Earth because superior scientific minds to mine have concluded that a round Earth is more plausible than other rival theories. It's impossible as far as I'm concerned to learn and test every single scientific theory and idea for myself, so it's necessary to put trust into scientists who have earned it. When concerning the shape of the Earth I'm happy to follow the majority of scientific authority and conclude for myself that it's round. This level of naivety I believe is excusable when I also admit that as soon as a more credible and widely accepted theory comes along I will have an open mind and will happily embrace this new theory provided it makes more sense.
When I say "makes more sense" I think this comes with two criteria. The first is that it comes with more scientific proof and evidence than its predecessor, I leave it to the general scientific authorities to demonstrate their approval of the evidence rather than testing it for myself. The second is that the theory is free of pseudoscience. This means the theory answers more questions than its predecessor and doesn't give rise to more questions than it answers.
I read your post. All I see is you comparing it to rival theories, without giving any reason for what makes you believe in it.
This isn't the answer. The sun still set's and rises whenever you go and that means that there is time period where you don't see the Sun and in that time who knows what happens to the Sun. Yes, others say that they see the Sun in other places but they may lie to you and there may be the conspiracy to hide the fact that Sun is destroyed every night and rebuilt again.
Yes, I know there is that possibility. But having personally experienced jet lag significantly, I am inclined to believe that there is only one Sun.
No, it basically comes down to this that people are explained and shown that the earth is round. And not one person shows them otherwise. There isn't blind acceptance anywhere.
Really? I've never been shown that the Earth is round.
Robosteve back up a second.
Let's go over this:
1)There is a lot of evidence for a Round Earth.
2)There is very little evidence for a Flat Earth.
Sorry, but when there is more evidence for a certain shape e.g. that the earth is round, it is logical to then believe the earth is round.
Why? All you are saying is that RET is preferable to FET, and not that it has any plausibility on its own. I'm sorry, but when you have to resort to pointing out flaws in other theories to justify your own, there
isn't enough evidence to justify it properly.
AT NO POINT IS THE EARTH SEEN AS A DEFAULT SHAPE E.G. FLAT
That's funny, because you seem to be assuming the Earth to be round by default.
Evidence for a round earth is evidence to believe the earth is round & evidence that the earth is not flat. Kind of obvious.
Then why are you talking about it as a reason why you don't believe in FET, when that is not what I am asking?
And again, you have yet to show how a scientist or philosopher can believe in a flat earth.
Because if a person were a scientist or philosopher, and believed in a Flat Earth, then that scientist or philosopher would believe in a Flat Earth. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as we are debating the inherent value of RET.
I'm not saying "All FE believers are (insert derogatory comment)", I'm saying they don't fully grasp the scientific method e.g. Hypothesis, -> evidence -> conclusion.
I grasp the scientific method very well, thanks, and therefore consider it derogatory that you make such a sweeping statement about all FEers.
I take their word for it, look I admit that it is just belief, and that in itself is not logical or rational.
Thank you.