Conspiracy as a logical trap.

How do I find proof that cannot, 100%, at all, be disproven?

You would not be able to find conclusive proof to even your own existence, regardless of congnito ergo sum.

Proof is a sliding scale, and is valid only in the eyes of the beholder. We can only speak from what our eyes and experiences tell us.

Okay. So: We cannot disprove the conspiracy to you, and you cannot prove it to us. So at what point is debating this even worth anyone's while?

When our sides are hurting from laughing so much.

Alright.  Based on your arguments, you have found "evidence" proving the Earth is flat, thereby proving the existance of the Conspiracy as a logical extension.  Heres the problem:  You didn't.  Not entirely.

You are not scientists.  However, you are trying to operate based on scientific principles, so I shall hold you to them.  I say you are operating on scientific principles because you think you have found out something about how the world works, the realm of science, that study of observable data.  Alright, so.

You take what evidence you will.  You say this "proves" things.  All the evidence against you you set aside to later, by your argument.  Once the data you have found that "supports" you is collected, and you decide the Earth is flat, THEN you come to that which is against you.  And you declare, "No!  The Earth is flat!  There must be some explanation!"  Thus is the Conspiracy born.

You refuse to accept any data that goes against you.  You hold up any data, no matter how fleeting or tarnished, up as solid proof.  I speak of your photos.  I cannot understand how, with a straight face, you tell us our photos are fake but YOURS are perfectly legit.  I suppose you can turn that around, but lets just agree all photos are fakes, shall we?  Shall we not operate on an equal field at least that far?

This is what bothers me.  The hippocrasy, the embracing of anything and everything that fits what you believe, and the casual dismissal of whatever discomforts you.

hippocrasy

lol


But seriously.  I would read my first post in this topic and try to have think beyond the surface.

I apologize for any spelling errors.  I tend to type in a great hurry.  I know I should be more careful, a flaw of mine I know, but there you are.

[edit]

Alright, I have read your post.  And, I must say, and?  There is a few slight errors in your proof, but I must admit I did not immediately grasp its significance.  I can be a bit slow at times.

To the "dogma" of the round Earthers... I can scarcely believe the gall you show.  Round Earthers don't prove anything, clinging to what they know?  There have been countless numbers of proofs given by the Round Earthers, mathmatical explanations, astronomical ones, and more.  Flat Earthers, to the contrary, have only a few small, weak experiments, a few easily photoshopped pictures (To the round earthers large number of easily photoshopped pictures   ), and The Conspiracy.

Spelling errors are fine, I make them all the time, lots of people do.  It's no judgement on your character.  I just found that one particularly funny.

From your comment, I think you misunderstood what was being said.  In any event, the burden of proof is not on us, but on the people claiming that we're wrong.  If we went out of our way to try and convince somebody, the burden would be on us.

I can see your point, to a degree.  Yes, we did come here.  However, you are trying to convince others, at least to some degree.  Otherwise, why would you even have this forum?  If you truly did not care about convincing us, why would you debate with us?  What would be the point?  

Ultimately I think the burdan must be on you.  Look at it this way.  If everyone who had, I apologize, a crackpot theory could hold it up and say the burden of proof is on the regular science, well, it would never end.  When something is widely achnowledged to be correct, and furthermore makes sense, it falls upon the ursurpers to explain why what they say is any better.    Otherwise I could advance my Magical Fish explanation of creation and be equally as valid as anything else.  Burden falls on that which challenges the established.

It is always the champion that defends the title, not the other way around.

You should read my first post again.  Don't take things literally.

Beast, I truly, humbly apologize.  You were quite right.  We agree exactly over what the debate truly is, even if we see the sides drawn differently.  I have no defense other than haste, as I have already explained is my greatest weakness.

It has been a pleasure.

Daemonaetea, your not leaving are you?  You're probably one of only a few sane ones on here.

Last bump.

No, I am not leaving the forums yet.  I simply think this particular topic has got as much milage out of it as it can/needs, and I shall now let it rest in peace.

If you say so, but i like your logic so stick around.  It's kinda fun.

SODAPOP