Any comments on, "The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory"

Here is what brotherhood of the dome claims are (with a link to his original), 

The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory

This will be a database when you need a strong argument and discuss something.

These arguments selected by me has enough experience about this issue.

1- nasa hoax: NASA's landing on the moon is a fake, and photos taken at so called space are fake. such that astronauts sometimes need to be in space, displayed in the studio in the world, sometimes suddenly disappearing in the international space station, sometimes displayed without gloves outside the station, and more other bullshits.

2- gravity: the impulse of mass gravity independence of gravitational acceleration can be destroyed by the demonstration of a simple helium balloon. however, you rarely see it. and there are no laboratory tests related to the masses being mutually attracted.

3- the vacuum effect of space: the power of vacuum is one of the most powerful within the known natural forces. it may seem low in theory, but it is practically high. you can carry a 300-pound glass with 2 vacuum holders in a hand size. but there is no answer to why the space that created the vacuum effect does not vacuum the atmosphere because it is a space.

4- all "objective" observations made reveal that the world has no necessary curvature.

5- google map and other maps can be destroyable by a compass has cost of 1$.

6- the moon is seen in the daytime side of the world, and at the same time it is seen in the back of the world at night which is 180 degrees other side of the first point.

7- The daytime and nighttime air temperature differences are proved by me which is much more in the southern hemicircle than northern hemicircle. the reason for this difference is that the sun travels much more in the southern hemisphere and is closer to the surface than the northern hemisphere.

8- the measurements with the sphere maps representing the northern hemisphere, the same one on the flat map representing the northern hemicircle by same value. maps containing the northern hemisphere are actually nonsences. the distance between the two points to be selected from the northern hemisphere on a globe depicting the world is actually different. The data used in google and yandex are not taken from the round but taken from the circle earth map.

9- religious arguments: the phrase "upholsering the earth as carpet" was used in quran, and it was told that the devil had brought Jesus to a high mountain and showed all the kingdoms on the earth from there. if this argument is used well, it would be impossible for the pious of 2 billion Christians to deny it.

10- rain: rain does not always rain in the cloudy weather. Sometimes it rains when there is no cloud. for there is water on the face of heaven. but they can hardly reach the surface because the distance is long and the layers are different. occasionally it is raining because of the direct sky. There is nothing to say by popular fake scientists about this matter except denying.

11- conservation of energy: no such thing as. when two waves in the opposite form form one over the other, the energies go down to zero.

12- speed of light: our work shows that internet ping times between some lines are about 6 times faster than light speed. the speed limit of light is a bullshit.

13- it can not be explained by round model by the fact that the great earthquakes are located in the outer part of the world on the Indonesia-australia line called the oceania in the outer world according to the flat world model and there are no earthquakes in the middle parts of the world. it should have a uniform distribution by the model of the round earth but it isin't.

14- we are always seeing the same face of the moon; proves the month is 2-dimensional.

15- The sun and the moon, first one is the source of the daylight and the other one is the light of the night, have about same apparent size can't be explainable by a 3d universe model. Actually there is about infinity probability.

16- The compass is constantly rotating at the exact north pole, but such an experiment can not be done in the south pole. because there is no pole in the south.

17- old maps: old maps support flat earth theory.

18- The rate of increase in the number of believers in the flat earth is also a strong evidence. according to this, in 2020 the entire world will believe in the flat earth because you can not cover the facts with pressure, it will find a way for itself.

19- antarctica: antarctica, ice wall and mountains surrounding our world. every work done in the south direction to the end was not found. most of the investigations have been stuck in the glaciers and have come back to the end. The place described as a pole is not a pole and the compass still shows southward direction.

20-. Satellites: Satellites can not be observed from the ground, even though their location is obvious. even they do not appear in airplanes. furthermore, the antenna in your roof does not have to turn in order to receive the broadcast of the satellite, which should turn around the earth. The lack of satellites supports the flat earth.

21- From the United States, you can listen to a high-tune radio broadcast from turkey. while the maximum distance the radio signal could reach was around one hundred miles in a round world.

22- the sky is blue: the answer is straightforward in the flat world. how the ocean is blue, because the color of the water is blue. but because it contradicts the nonsence of the earth as being round, it tells "light breaking, color absorption" and so on. when you look at the clouds, the airplane, or the ocean, the light is not broken or absorbed.

We can continue but these arguments are enough to you for a good debate.

This study was designed to be a guide for researchers of this theory.

There is obviously too much to treat in one post, but maybe some could post comments on a selection?

Personnel attack. Threads must have their own issue. This is not A&R.

Personnel attack. Threads must have their own issue. This is not A&R.

The topic is completely valid as it brings about to discuss and debate the points that you have brought forth in a topic that can't be debated in.

Not everything is a personal attack against you.

Personnel attack. Threads must have their own issue. This is not A&R.

People objecting to your claims is not a personal attack.

You previously brought this up in a debate and refused to debate it.
Here is where it has been discussed previously:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72691.msg1980817#msg1980817

Notice the lack of any response from you?

Now can you defend your claims?

Personnel attack. Threads must have their own issue. This is not A&R.

Mr Brotherhood of the Dome, there is no personal attack in my thread.
My only contributions were,

Here is what brotherhood of the dome claims are (with a link to his original),  << brotherhood of the dome's post >>

and

There is obviously too much to treat in one post, but maybe some could post comments on a selection?

So, if there is any personal attack you made it, so let's see:
You attack NASA without evidence and NASA is composed of people, in:

1- nasa hoax: NASA's landing on the moon is a fake, and photos taken at so called space are fake. such that astronauts sometimes need to be in space, displayed in the studio in the world, sometimes suddenly disappearing in the international space station, sometimes displayed without gloves outside the station, and more other bullshits.

You attack scientists and all scientists are people, in:

There is nothing to say by popular fake scientists about this matter except denying.

But I did not attack anyone at all, just quoted your claims.

20-. Satellites: Satellites can not be observed from the ground, even though their location is obvious. even they do not appear in airplanes. furthermore, the antenna in your roof does not have to turn in order to receive the broadcast of the satellite, which should turn around the earth. The lack of satellites supports the flat earth.

I have witnessed satellites moving across the sky from the ground.

22- the sky is blue: the answer is straightforward in the flat world. how the ocean is blue, because the color of the water is blue

There is no color to water (unless it is dirty. <grin>)  Water is not blue.

13- it can not be explained by round model by the fact that the great earthquakes are located in the outer part of the world on the Indonesia-australia line called the oceania in the outer world according to the flat world model and there are no earthquakes in the middle parts of the world. it should have a uniform distribution by the model of the round earth but it isin't.

A study of plate tectonics would explain why this statement is in error.

1- nasa hoax: NASA's landing on the moon is a fake, and photos taken at so called space are fake. such that astronauts sometimes need to be in space, displayed in the studio in the world, sometimes suddenly disappearing in the international space station, sometimes displayed without gloves outside the station, and more other bullshits.

I've seen plenty of videos of flat earthers debunking NASA videos, each and every time it seems that the cause is compression artifacts due to a lost I-frame. If you knew more about video compression, you would know that this is exactly what is witnissed in these videos. I've also seen claims that they use holograms to show objects floating, but the video which is referenced all the time can be very easily explained using very simple movie editing without holograms.
I cannot explain the part where they are outside the space station without gloves, can you provide a link?

2- gravity: the impulse of mass gravity independence of gravitational acceleration can be destroyed by the demonstration of a simple helium balloon. however, you rarely see it. and there are no laboratory tests related to the masses being mutually attracted.

Boyancy is a product of gravity, and boyancy perfectly explains how a helium balloon floats upwards.

3- the vacuum effect of space: the power of vacuum is one of the most powerful within the known natural forces. it may seem low in theory, but it is practically high. you can carry a 300-pound glass with 2 vacuum holders in a hand size. but there is no answer to why the space that created the vacuum effect does not vacuum the atmosphere because it is a space.

There is an answer, its called gravity. Gravity pulls down on the air while the air is moving to a less dense area upwards. This however has reached an equilibrium where the atmosphere is stable above the earth.

4- all "objective" observations made reveal that the world has no necessary curvature.

Looking from the ground, the earth looks flat. Even in an airplane, the earth looks flat. However, the horizon is below our level (0.4 degrees below at human height, 3 degrees below at cruising altitude), we can just not see it due to not having a reference line which shows the exact 90 degree angle to the earth.

5- google map and other maps can be destroyable by a compass has cost of 1$.

Most current maps use the Mercator projection, which is the best map to use with a compass, and was the primary map used for seafaring when we where still trying to decide the best map projection to use.
The Mercator projection is perfect for navigation, as all angles match the compass angles for all directions.

6- the moon is seen in the daytime side of the world, and at the same time it is seen in the back of the world at night which is 180 degrees other side of the first point.

Unless the moon is near the horizon on both locations, this should be impossible.
It should also be impossible on a flat earth, as the moon would be well outside of view (unless it magically behaves differently than the sun).

7- The daytime and nighttime air temperature differences are proved by me which is much more in the southern hemicircle than northern hemicircle. the reason for this difference is that the sun travels much more in the southern hemisphere and is closer to the surface than the northern hemisphere.

Temperature is determined by weather, location, sea-currents, winds, ect. Without a significant amount of observations it would be impossible to use the readings for any conclusion about a flat or globe earth.

8- the measurements with the sphere maps representing the northern hemisphere, the same one on the flat map representing the northern hemicircle by same value. maps containing the northern hemisphere are actually nonsences. the distance between the two points to be selected from the northern hemisphere on a globe depicting the world is actually different. The data used in google and yandex are not taken from the round but taken from the circle earth map.

Using the flat earth map, you get measurements nearer the northern hemisphere that are more correct using straight lines. This however becomes very extremely bad when making measurements in the southern hemisphere.
Google Maps uses the globe earth values everywhere, there are no locations where it suddenly uses other measurements. As you can see on Google Maps, it shows the lines that represent the fastest route between 2 points on a globe earth, and these greatly resembles the lines that aircraft follow as they are the optimal routes to take.

9- religious arguments: the phrase "upholsering the earth as carpet" was used in quran, and it was told that the devil had brought Jesus to a high mountain and showed all the kingdoms on the earth from there. if this argument is used well, it would be impossible for the pious of 2 billion Christians to deny it.

If you believe that everything in religious texts are correct without a doubt, then I can't convince you. Back when it was written, people didn't know the earth was round and didn't question it as they had plenty of other things to think about. It wasn't before 500 years ago that America was discovered, and back then it was only discovered because we believed the earth was a globe and could sail to india faster using another route (which is why we call the native americans for Indians.

10- rain: rain does not always rain in the cloudy weather. Sometimes it rains when there is no cloud. for there is water on the face of heaven. but they can hardly reach the surface because the distance is long and the layers are different. occasionally it is raining because of the direct sky. There is nothing to say by popular fake scientists about this matter except denying.

I've witnessed rain while simultaniously being bathed in sunlight, but there were clouds present which accounted for the rain.
Show me any evidence of rain when the sky is clear.

11- conservation of energy: no such thing as. when two waves in the opposite form form one over the other, the energies go down to zero.

So you are saying that when completely opposite 2 waves meet, they cancel each other out completely? I get the concept and theory, but I have not explored this physics issue thorougly.
I also see nothing at all to connect this to the earth being flat or round?

12- speed of light: our work shows that internet ping times between some lines are about 6 times faster than light speed. the speed limit of light is a bullshit.

So you are basing light speed on internet ping times. You should first of all realise that a lot of internet trafic is done at light speed. Then realise that it is very difficult to measure light speed. How are you getting your distances? How do you account for software and hardware decrepencies?
I will admit that the concept of using internet ping times as evidence is a valid, but there are too many uncertainties. Also, how does this relate to the earth being flat or round?

13- it can not be explained by round model by the fact that the great earthquakes are located in the outer part of the world on the Indonesia-australia line called the oceania in the outer world according to the flat world model and there are no earthquakes in the middle parts of the world. it should have a uniform distribution by the model of the round earth but it isin't.

You are basing this assumption on what? There aren't many people who have the knowledge and understanding needed to know how plate tectonics work and why some parts of the world have more earthquakes than others.

14- we are always seeing the same face of the moon; proves the month is 2-dimensional.

It does not prove the moon is 2d, but it is an odd uccorance (just like the sun and moon having roughly the same angular size as viewed from earth). The flat earth model must assume that the moon is flat, as any roundness would be detected as you move larger distances on the earth. But on the globe earth we explain this behaviour by having the moon rotate around the earth once every month and rotate around its own axis once every month, which would provide a moon surface that does not rotate relative to the earth.
So we have an explanation which perfectly predicts the moon using the globe earth, therefore the moon is not proven to be 2d.

15- The sun and the moon, first one is the source of the daylight and the other one is the light of the night, have about same apparent size can't be explainable by a 3d universe model. Actually there is about infinity probability.

But this is perfectly explained using the globe earth model. The moon is lit by the sun and reflects light upon the earth (moon dust is actually pretty reflective). The angular size of the moon and sun is also perfectly explained using the globe model, as the sun is roughly 400 times larger than the moon and also roughly 400 times further away from the earth than the moon, giving us roughly the same angular size.

16- The compass is constantly rotating at the exact north pole, but such an experiment can not be done in the south pole. because there is no pole in the south.

The north pole and the magnetic north pole are in different locations. The north pole represents the earth rotation axis around itself, while the magnetic north pole does not align perfectly with this.

17- old maps: old maps support flat earth theory.

Maps are made on flat paper, hence they are flat... Map projections provide projections of the globe earth onto flat maps.

18- The rate of increase in the number of believers in the flat earth is also a strong evidence. according to this, in 2020 the entire world will believe in the flat earth because you can not cover the facts with pressure, it will find a way for itself.

People that already believe in conspiracy theories tend to get involved in more conspiracy theories. And a lot of people do not understand the current model, hence they are easilier persuaded to the argument that the earth looks flat, therefore it is flat.
But without a working model, the flat earth community will fail miserably and never gain anything other than a short period of growth due to being mentioned in news.

19- antarctica: antarctica, ice wall and mountains surrounding our world. every work done in the south direction to the end was not found. most of the investigations have been stuck in the glaciers and have come back to the end. The place described as a pole is not a pole and the compass still shows southward direction.

Same explanation as 16.

20-. Satellites: Satellites can not be observed from the ground, even though their location is obvious. even they do not appear in airplanes. furthermore, the antenna in your roof does not have to turn in order to receive the broadcast of the satellite, which should turn around the earth. The lack of satellites supports the flat earth.

Satelites can be observed from the ground, they are just very small in angular size due to their altitude and do not light up to be visible. The satelite dishes that use the geo stationary broadcasting satelites do not need to turn, as the satelites are in an orbit which corresponds to the earths rotation, but you need to be pretty precise with the angle of your satelite dish to be able to get a good signal.

21- From the United States, you can listen to a high-tune radio broadcast from turkey. while the maximum distance the radio signal could reach was around one hundred miles in a round world.

I haven't looked into this, so I can't answer why high-tune radio can be heard around the earth. But I am sure it is already explained in detail in numerous videos and articles.

22- the sky is blue: the answer is straightforward in the flat world. how the ocean is blue, because the color of the water is blue. but because it contradicts the nonsence of the earth as being round, it tells "light breaking, color absorption" and so on. when you look at the clouds, the airplane, or the ocean, the light is not broken or absorbed.

Do you not understand the priciple that some light is absorbed by matter giving us colors?
Black is black because it absorbs more light, and because it absorbs more light it becomes hotter than things that do not absorb as much light, like white or mirrors.
This absorbtion of light is what creates color, and it is responsible for the sky being mostly blue.

I cannot explain the part where they are outside the space station without gloves, can you provide a link?[/i]

The video in question shows the gloved left hand (more specifically the gloved thumb, index, and middle fingers of the left hand) of an astronaut conducting repairs in space.  Mission control states in the video that they can see his glove and index finger.  Because they didn't say glove, which you can clearly see the astronaut is wearing, it must be fake.

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Ok. We don’t know the nature of the universe. You don know the distance between any two points in the Southern Hemisphere. GG

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on April 17, 2018, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

We believed the earth to be flat for millions of years, before anyone could travel big distances to notice anything that could change this notion.
A few thousand years ago, we finally didn't have to spend all our time hunting and gathering, and we started to really think about the properties of nature.
We could write down our observations, so as they could be shared and understood by other people.
We began figuring out the earth could be a sphere, made observations that matched a spherical earth rather than a flat earth.
We spread that knowledge, and mind you that the flat earth theory had existed since long ago and nobody was preventing people in experimenting and proving the flat earth.
There were plenty of evidence to support the globe earth, and since the math (which provides proof) works, it became generally accepted that the earth most likely was a globe, and later accepted that it indeed IS a globe (which is why kids are tought about it as fact, as we have plenty of proof that it is).
So we currently have a model that has persisted the test of time, and explains how almost everything works. We are now exploring and researching what happened before the big bang and how quantum mechanics work (which is only possible because of our previous knowledge, experiments and observations that we wrote down), while you flat-earthers cling to a theory because it provides a conspiracy you believe in.

The human race has had an equal amount of time to prove a flat earth, and it has had an equal amount of time to disprove the globe earth, so why hasn't it?
Probably because the only arguments they have that are fact are: the earth 'looks' flat, and that it 'feels' as though we are not moving. Both of which have been explained thoroughly, and experiments that can be done to show this, infact show rotation and curvature (you simply discard any such evidence).

Lastly. Just because the earth is a globe, does absolutely nothing to disprove a god. A god is absolutely needed in the forming of a flat earth, but nothing goes against a god who could create the globe earth, and a god could easily be behind the intelligent design of nature and physics as we know it, it simply cannot be proven currently that there is a god or isn't.

PS: if your only argument is 'GOD' and the bible, then you really are lost. Try listening to all these contradictions in the bible:

and then tell me that everything in the bible is true. That alone should tell you that the bible 'can be wrong'.

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 07:48:12 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on April 17, 2018, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

We believed the earth to be flat for millions of years, before anyone could travel big distances to notice anything that could change this notion.
A few thousand years ago, we finally didn't have to spend all our time hunting and gathering, and we started to really think about the properties of nature.
We could write down our observations, so as they could be shared and understood by other people.
We began figuring out the earth could be a sphere, made observations that matched a spherical earth rather than a flat earth.
We spread that knowledge, and mind you that the flat earth theory had existed since long ago and nobody was preventing people in experimenting and proving the flat earth.
There were plenty of evidence to support the globe earth, and since the math (which provides proof) works, it became generally accepted that the earth most likely was a globe, and later accepted that it indeed IS a globe (which is why kids are tought about it as fact, as we have plenty of proof that it is).
So we currently have a model that has persisted the test of time, and explains how almost everything works. We are now exploring and researching what happened before the big bang and how quantum mechanics work (which is only possible because of our previous knowledge, experiments and observations that we wrote down), while you flat-earthers cling to a theory because it provides a conspiracy you believe in.

The human race has had an equal amount of time to prove a flat earth, and it has had an equal amount of time to disprove the globe earth, so why hasn't it?
Probably because the only arguments they have that are fact are: the earth 'looks' flat, and that it 'feels' as though we are not moving. Both of which have been explained thoroughly, and experiments that can be done to show this, infact show rotation and curvature (you simply discard any such evidence).

Lastly. Just because the earth is a globe, does absolutely nothing to disprove a god. A god is absolutely needed in the forming of a flat earth, but nothing goes against a god who could create the globe earth, and a god could easily be behind the intelligent design of nature and physics as we know it, it simply cannot be proven currently that there is a god or isn't.

PS: if your only argument is 'GOD' and the bible, then you really are lost. Try listening to all these contradictions in the bible:

and then tell me that everything in the bible is true. That alone should tell you that the bible 'can be wrong'.

And in another 10,000 years of progress, imagine what more can be learned. You will find the idea of the globe being the final say of the shape of the Earth out dated as our understanding of the universe and physics evolves. As we uncover the nature of dark energy and matter and be able to ascertain the nature of more spatial dimensions, who knows what the shape of the Earth is. Time is relative. Does the universe exist outside of time? Is the speed of light meant to be the 'normal' or default way of viewing the universe? Perhaps everything exists in a state where time does not apply. The globe works for us puttering about our menial existence but that doesn't mean the world is a globe. It just means it's all we are able to comprehend and interact with it. In the future you will understand far more and perhaps even laugh at the silly ineptitude of your ancestors in the 21st century who thought they 'knew it all'

As for God, it is whatever sparked the creation of this universe. Mindless exotic particle quantum tunnelling into a big bang in a prior heat death version of a universe or what we read in the bible. Who knows the truth. Not you, nor I

You will find the idea of the globe being the final say of the shape of the Earth out dated

No we wont, at least not with how it actually is.
People don't think Earth is a perfect globe. They think it is approximately a globe.
In reality it is not a perfect sphere, it has significant asymmetry.
There is absolutely no reason at all to think this will be magically overturned.

Unlike assumptions of Earth being flat, this is actually based upon evidence and understanding.

And in another 10,000 years of progress, imagine what more can be learned. You will find the idea of the globe being the final say of the shape of the Earth out dated as our understanding of the universe and physics evolves. As we uncover the nature of dark energy and matter and be able to ascertain the nature of more spatial dimensions, who knows what the shape of the Earth is. Time is relative. Does the universe exist outside of time? Is the speed of light meant to be the 'normal' or default way of viewing the universe? Perhaps everything exists in a state where time does not apply. The globe works for us puttering about our menial existence but that doesn't mean the world is a globe. It just means it's all we are able to comprehend and interact with it. In the future you will understand far more and perhaps even laugh at the silly ineptitude of your ancestors in the 21st century who thought they 'knew it all'

As for God, it is whatever sparked the creation of this universe. Mindless exotic particle quantum tunnelling into a big bang in a prior heat death version of a universe or what we read in the bible. Who knows the truth. Not you, nor I

So because we would potentially discover that we live in a multidimensional reality, we should accept that the earth is not a globe but flat?
That argument is flat out nonsense.
I can easily accept the possibility that there are more dimensions, or that we live in a simulation, or that there is a god of creation that created the reality we live in, or that there are an infinite amount of universes. This however does not take away from our current understanding, measurements, experiments, theories and proofs that the earth in our 3 dimensional space is the shape resempling a sphere and all our observations match perfectly with this. While the flat earth theory has absolutely nothing with which it can predict anything, and we can very easily predict almost everything we can observe using the globe earth.

Quote from: Shifter on April 18, 2018, 12:40:42 AM

And in another 10,000 years of progress, imagine what more can be learned. You will find the idea of the globe being the final say of the shape of the Earth out dated as our understanding of the universe and physics evolves. As we uncover the nature of dark energy and matter and be able to ascertain the nature of more spatial dimensions, who knows what the shape of the Earth is. Time is relative. Does the universe exist outside of time? Is the speed of light meant to be the 'normal' or default way of viewing the universe? Perhaps everything exists in a state where time does not apply. The globe works for us puttering about our menial existence but that doesn't mean the world is a globe. It just means it's all we are able to comprehend and interact with it. In the future you will understand far more and perhaps even laugh at the silly ineptitude of your ancestors in the 21st century who thought they 'knew it all'

As for God, it is whatever sparked the creation of this universe. Mindless exotic particle quantum tunnelling into a big bang in a prior heat death version of a universe or what we read in the bible. Who knows the truth. Not you, nor I

So because we would potentially discover that we live in a multidimensional reality, we should accept that the earth is not a globe but flat?
That argument is flat out nonsense.
I can easily accept the possibility that there are more dimensions, or that we live in a simulation, or that there is a god of creation that created the reality we live in, or that there are an infinite amount of universes. This however does not take away from our current understanding, measurements, experiments, theories and proofs that the earth in our 3 dimensional space is the shape resempling a sphere and all our observations match perfectly with this. While the flat earth theory has absolutely nothing with which it can predict anything, and we can very easily predict almost everything we can observe using the globe earth.

I have never advocated that so you can stop with the lies. You couldn't even fathom what even a 4th spatial dimensional earth would look like. When humanity does, you can use it to travel anywhere on the planet faster than light would in a typical 3 dimensional fashion

Good luck

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 18, 2018, 02:26:24 AM

Quote from: Shifter on April 18, 2018, 12:40:42 AM

And in another 10,000 years of progress, imagine what more can be learned. You will find the idea of the globe being the final say of the shape of the Earth out dated as our understanding of the universe and physics evolves. As we uncover the nature of dark energy and matter and be able to ascertain the nature of more spatial dimensions, who knows what the shape of the Earth is. Time is relative. Does the universe exist outside of time? Is the speed of light meant to be the 'normal' or default way of viewing the universe? Perhaps everything exists in a state where time does not apply. The globe works for us puttering about our menial existence but that doesn't mean the world is a globe. It just means it's all we are able to comprehend and interact with it. In the future you will understand far more and perhaps even laugh at the silly ineptitude of your ancestors in the 21st century who thought they 'knew it all'

As for God, it is whatever sparked the creation of this universe. Mindless exotic particle quantum tunnelling into a big bang in a prior heat death version of a universe or what we read in the bible. Who knows the truth. Not you, nor I

So because we would potentially discover that we live in a multidimensional reality, we should accept that the earth is not a globe but flat?
That argument is flat out nonsense.
I can easily accept the possibility that there are more dimensions, or that we live in a simulation, or that there is a god of creation that created the reality we live in, or that there are an infinite amount of universes. This however does not take away from our current understanding, measurements, experiments, theories and proofs that the earth in our 3 dimensional space is the shape resempling a sphere and all our observations match perfectly with this. While the flat earth theory has absolutely nothing with which it can predict anything, and we can very easily predict almost everything we can observe using the globe earth.

I have never advocated that so you can stop with the lies. You couldn't even fathom what even a 4th spatial dimensional earth would look like. When humanity does, you can use it to travel anywhere on the planet faster than light would in a typical 3 dimensional fashion

Good luck

Sorry, you never mentioned the flat earth and I made an assumption. My fault.

The thing is that we are able to simulate 4th dimensional spatial physics, but so far there are no observations that show any such behaviour occuring (or any irregularities in our universe except that we have not accounted for most of the mass in our universe as of yet).
I can even imagine how a 4th spatial dimension would work with the earth in its current form, basically just providing slight variations on the structure of the earth (as a multiverse theory sorta), but this is just a concept ofcourse and there is nothing to suggest that we live in a 4th or higher dimensional reality.

Currently you are arguing based on things we have yet to observe that could provide a new theory of our reality. You are arguing that our current model is 'final', but that is not what we think. Our model changes as we learn and observe new things, I agree. This however does not change the mountain of evidence and proof that the world we live on resembles a sphere and not a flat disc as the flat earth community postulates.

You couldn't even fathom what even a 4th spatial dimensional earth would look like. When humanity does, you can use it to travel anywhere on the planet faster than light would in a typical 3 dimensional fashion

Prove it, or admit that you are fabricating stories.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on April 17, 2018, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 07:48:12 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on April 17, 2018, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

While Flat Earth is a stupid idea at the very best, your request answers why it cannot be answered.  Bare with me that's a bit confusing, but you request evidence of a God that can block your perception the God's presence and works at will.  No matter what you believe, you have to see that is an impossible task.  If God can mask anything at will, and by the necessity, said God cannot allow evidence of his/her/it's presence without forever breaking the ability to have real faith, how would one provide evidence of it. 

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 05:52:22 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 07:48:12 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on April 17, 2018, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2018, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: nickrulercreator on April 17, 2018, 06:07:04 PM

It's odd how there is really no evidence presented by Brotherhood, just speculation and claims.

The same could be said for the globe earth supporters. You don't know the nature of the universe, so you yourself just speculate.

Yes, there is plenty of speculation regarding the nature of the universe, but our solar system, and our place in it, is very well understood.

You can ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but this fact remains clear. The globe Earth does not need to be "supported".

Well understood through the lens and capacity of a human - for humans yes. But through the lens of a God? You don't know shit

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

While Flat Earth is a stupid idea at the very best, your request answers why it cannot be answered.  Bare with me that's a bit confusing, but you request evidence of a God that can block your perception the God's presence and works at will.  No matter what you believe, you have to see that is an impossible task.  If God can mask anything at will, and by the necessity, said God cannot allow evidence of his/her/it's presence without forever breaking the ability to have real faith, how would one provide evidence of it.

Or maybe because there is absolutely no evidence at all to support the idea, the idea is wrong.  Faith (in this context) is an excuse not to accept reality, and it serves no beneficial purpose to humanity.  The idea of "godly power" is consistent with the inability to explain something.  There is no credibility there.

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

Inductively, we can argue that the existence of god is unlikely.  Deductively, we cannot argue that god does not exist.  By asking for evidence supporting god's existence begs the inductive argument.

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 05:52:22 PM

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

Inductively, we can argue that the existence of god is unlikely.  Deductively, we cannot argue that god does not exist.  By asking for evidence supporting god's existence begs the inductive argument.

Deductively, we also cannot argue that god does exist.  If flat earthers want to try and pretend their position is empirical, they can't possibly suggest the existence of a god that cannot be verified by observation.

Quote from: Gumwars on April 20, 2018, 06:30:51 PM

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 05:52:22 PM

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

Inductively, we can argue that the existence of god is unlikely.  Deductively, we cannot argue that god does not exist.  By asking for evidence supporting god's existence begs the inductive argument.

Deductively, we also cannot argue that god does exist.  If flat earthers want to try and pretend their position is empirical, they can't possibly suggest the existence of a god that cannot be verified by observation.

The problem with the deductive argument is that the original formulation which is:

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5.Evil exists.

6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

7.Therefore, God doesn’t exist. (source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)

Can be refuted using Plantigna's free will defense.  When attempting to argue using a universal quantifier, i.e., all of something, the refutation isn't to prove where every case fails, you only need to prove that one case fails.  Deductively, we can argue that god does not exist but it need only be proven wrong in one case. 

Here's one of the deductive arguments for the existence of god (St. Anslem of Canterbury):

1.God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived)

2.If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea), then a greater being could be imagined to exist both in the mind and in reality

3.This being would then be greater than God

4.Thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind

5.Therefore, God exists both in the mind (as an idea) and in reality.

The fault with this argument is that it makes an a priori assumption regarding the existence of a being ahead of the imagining of the same being.  It can also be faulted using a reductio ad absurdum; we can deduce the existence of anything using the same argument.  Immanuel Kant also argued against this formulation based on a fault with the third premise; does the instantiation of a idea by default make it greater (or have greater value) than the idea itself? 

Either way, deductively, I agree that we cannot find a valid and sound argument that proves or disproves the existence of god. 

Inductively, however, we can effectively argue against the existence of god to a point where it is very unlikely that god exists. 

The FE crowd isn't big on deductive or inductive argumentation, in my opinion. 

I would, in all fairness, ask what sort of observation you would accept as proof or support that god exists.  I do see Mikey's point, you are setting the bar rather high.

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 06:54:15 PM

Quote from: Gumwars on April 20, 2018, 06:30:51 PM

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 05:52:22 PM

Show us reproducible evidence of this god, and then show us reproducible evidence that this god would not allow us to perceive the universe as it does, or as it is.

Inductively, we can argue that the existence of god is unlikely.  Deductively, we cannot argue that god does not exist.  By asking for evidence supporting god's existence begs the inductive argument.

Deductively, we also cannot argue that god does exist.  If flat earthers want to try and pretend their position is empirical, they can't possibly suggest the existence of a god that cannot be verified by observation.

The problem with the deductive argument is that the original formulation which is:

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

5.Evil exists.

6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

7.Therefore, God doesn’t exist. (source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/)

Can be refuted using Plantigna's free will defense.  When attempting to argue using a universal quantifier, i.e., all of something, the refutation isn't to prove where every case fails, you only need to prove that one case fails. 

Deductively, we can argue that god does not exist but it need only be proven wrong in one case.  Anslem's argument for the existence of god is formulated as follows:

1.God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived)

2.If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea), then a greater being could be imagined to exist both in the mind and in reality

3.This being would then be greater than God

4.Thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind

5.Therefore, God exists both in the mind (as an idea) and in reality.

The fault with this argument is that it makes an a priori assumption regarding the existence of a being ahead of the imagining of the same being.  It can also be faulted using a reductio ad absurdum; we can deduce the existence of anything using the same argument.  Immanuel Kant also argued against this formulation based on a fault with the third premise; does the instantiation of a idea by default make it greater (or have greater value) than the idea itself? 

Either way, deductively, I agree that we cannot find a valid and sound argument that proves or disproves the existence of god.  Inductively, however, we can effectively argue against the existence of god to a point where it is very unlikely that god exists. 

The FE crowd isn't big on deductive or inductive argumentation, in my opinion.  I would, in all fairness, ask what sort of observation you would accept as proof or support that god exists.

You are trying way to hard to just say something for the sake of saying something. 

The simple and most accurate answer is: You cannot make a logically sound (deductive) argument that a god, or gods, exist.  The idea of a god is the purest form of inductive reasoning.  "I don't understand this part of this thing, so a god must have done it".

I am not sure any evidence aside from a clear act of divine intervention would suggest that god, or a god, exists.  I am more trying to point out that the reliance on the god argument from flat earthers directly contradicts the "empirical high ground" they pretend to be standing on.

You are trying way to hard to just say something for the sake of saying something. 

The simple and most accurate answer is: You cannot make a logically sound (deductive) argument that a god, or gods, exist.  The idea of a god is the purest form of inductive reasoning.  "I don't understand this part of this thing, so a god must have done it".

I am not sure any evidence aside from a clear act of divine intervention would suggest that gods, or a god, exists.  I am more trying to point out that the reliance on the god argument from flat earthers directly contradicts the "empirical high ground" they pretend to be standing on.

I wanted to be clear that your point about not being able to deductively prove the existence of god comes from a different place than the rebuttal against the argument disproving the existence of god.  They aren't the same and that is a significant point.

This statement here:

The idea of a god is the purest form of inductive reasoning.  "I don't understand this part of this thing, so a god must have done it".

Would not be a good point defending the existence of god as an inductive argument.  It is a leap to a conclusion.  The strength of an inductive argument is found in the volume and quality of its support. 

To your last point, yes I agree.  I see it as an appeal to authority; a dodge when backed into a corner. 

Quote from: smokified on April 20, 2018, 07:26:59 PM

You are trying way to hard to just say something for the sake of saying something. 

The simple and most accurate answer is: You cannot make a logically sound (deductive) argument that a god, or gods, exist.  The idea of a god is the purest form of inductive reasoning.  "I don't understand this part of this thing, so a god must have done it".

I am not sure any evidence aside from a clear act of divine intervention would suggest that gods, or a god, exists.  I am more trying to point out that the reliance on the god argument from flat earthers directly contradicts the "empirical high ground" they pretend to be standing on.

I wanted to be clear that your point about not being able to deductively prove the existence of god comes from a different place than the rebuttal against the argument disproving the existence of god.  They aren't the same and that is a significant point.

This statement here:

Quote

The idea of a god is the purest form of inductive reasoning.  "I don't understand this part of this thing, so a god must have done it".

Would not be a good point defending the existence of god as an inductive argument.  It is a leap to a conclusion.  The strength of an inductive argument is found in the volume and quality of its support. 

To your last point, yes I agree.  I see it as an appeal to authority; a dodge when backed into a corner.

is it possible to make a proper deductive argument that god, or a god, exists?  1 word answer.