The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[Curious George]

I'd rather not get into the details of flat-earth cosmology as it gets into the realm of circumstantial evidence again, but suffice it to say, the "time zone" issue you've described has been addressed by flat-Earth theory if you care to look into it.


The world famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance" and "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense.The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

If we only have "circumstantial evidence" why would you believe the flat earth perspective? Certainly if what we have is only circumstantial evidence the evidence of the round earthers clearly outweighs that of the circumstantial evidence provided by the flat earthers. Seriously, how do the moon and man made satellites not just fall to the earth. We can observe this phenomenon when looking at other planets with moons, why would earth be different?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The world famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance" and "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense.The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

This quote mining is ridiculous as these quotes are obviously in reference to astronomy vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I'd like to see the remainder of where these quotes were extracted from. Besides, you're shifting the goalpost ... all of the theories you have presented each have one thing in common: Each hold the earth to be spherical.

 

[outhouse]

The earth is both flat and round.

Your factually wrong.

PROPER wording would be something more honest like this.

The earth is ROUND but has flat spots in places.

 

[outhouse]

This quote mining is ridiculous as these quotes are obviously in reference to astronomy vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I'd like to see the remainder of where these quotes were extracted from. Besides, you're shifting the goalpost ... all of the theories you have presented each have one thing in common: Each hold the earth to be spherical.

yes but your falling for his trap.

its all POE and he is just seeing how long he can string you out

 

[Shad]

I asked for people who have directly seen the whole earth for themselves, with their own eyes. Not parts of the earth as on a plane, nor through a second-hand source (e.g. via a camera). Try again.

Email NASA to see if they can put you in contact with an astronaut in order to meet your unrealistic standards.

 

[Shad]

I require this, and personal experience, to know one way or another.

If you haven't experienced something for yourself, then you don't really know about it, you only believe in it.

I'm not suggesting that I care to know one way or another on this topic. It's just that the round-Earthers, and perhaps some flat-Earthers, are pushing their belief as knowledge, when it isn't. I fully admit that my flat-earth belief is just that, a belief.

This ties in with my religious faith: I rejected religions which demanded beliefs, preferring knowledge promised instead by early Buddhism. I suppose that my participation in this thread is more about belief vs knowledge than about the shape of the Earth.

Knowledge is defined as justified belief or well justified true belief. So you already are confused over what knowledge means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would say that "I believe all those things exist", instead ... at least until I experienced them for myself.

You may believe, but I know. Much in a way that you don't have to experience smoking and lung cancer to know smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.

 

[buddhist]

If we only have "circumstantial evidence" why would you believe the flat earth perspective? Certainly if what we have is only circumstantial evidence the evidence of the round earthers clearly outweighs that of the circumstantial evidence provided by the flat earthers. Seriously, how do the moon and man made satellites not just fall to the earth. We can observe this phenomenon when looking at other planets with moons, why would earth be different?

I did not say that I believe the flat earth perspective. I stated that I lean towards that direction. Also, based on my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidence I've seen, the evidence of the flat earthers is more compelling to me than that of the round earthers.

 

[buddhist]

Email NASA to see if they can put you in contact with an astronaut in order to meet your unrealistic standards.

Is it unrealistic for people to claim that their chosen religion must be true because of various circumstantial evidences?

 

[buddhist]

Knowledge is defined as justified belief or well justified true belief. So you already are confused over what knowledge means.

I disagree, please see my last post.

 

[Parsimony]

The question is...
Why do you accept their testimony?

It is significantly more likely that they are being truthful than deceitful, given the mountainous problems that a world-wide conspiracy about spaceflight would face.

Honestly, I don't know yet.

I suppose this ties in to early Buddhism's philosophy, where I and my personal experiences are my final authority, and we require knowledge grown from the seed of belief. We do not surrender our authority to any other power, authority figure, impressive costumes or other uniforms, written scriptures, tradition, etc. This topic I treat no differently.

Do you doubt the existence of atoms, galaxies and viruses because you haven't seen them for yourself?

 

[Curious George]

I did not say that I believe the flat earth perspective. I stated that I lean towards that direction. Also, based on my personal evaluation of the circumstantial evidence I've seen, the evidence of the flat earthers is more compelling to me than that of the round earthers.

thank you for the reply.

Why not discuss this evidence if you feel that it is more compelling to you?

On an aside, why wouldn't our moon work like other moons that we can observe. How do man made satellites work without falling?

 

[buddhist]

Do you doubt the existence of atoms, galaxies and viruses because you haven't seen them for yourself?

I believe they exist. I don't know that they exist.

 

[buddhist]

thank you for the reply.

Why not discuss this evidence if you feel that it is more compelling to you?

On an aside, why wouldn't our moon work like other moons that we can observe. How do man made satellites work without falling?

Discussing circumstantial evidence regarding the shape of the earth can not lead us to a conclusive answer about the shape of the earth. It's pointless and endless, and there are different interpretations from both sides regarding whatever hard data we might present. e.g. "seeing a city skyline from 50+ miles away" (data, and circumstantial evidence) is interpreted by the flat-earther as "evidence of a flat earth"; yet that very same data is interpreted by the round-Earther as "evidence for mirages".

As in the Parable of the Elephant I gave earlier, the blind men can argue with each other all day long about the nature of "elephant," but none of them can come to true knowledge about the whole elephant without experiencing the whole elephant for himself.

 

[allfoak]

It is significantly more likely that they are being truthful than deceitful, given the mountainous problems that a world-wide conspiracy about spaceflight would face.

But not certain.
We have no idea what the truth is about anything that we haven't experienced for ourselves.

If you would like to really take a trip down the rabbit hole, try this.
How is it that we know that we know what we think we know?

We simply rely on "expert" opinion.
In other words, all we really know is what someone else has told us.
That means that we don't really know much of anything that we think we know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've never seen the Grand Canyon, Eiffel Tower, Canada, Texas, an atom, the satellite my phone depends on to work, and I've never seen Seattle, the place I'm planning on moving to, but I know all these things exist.

I've seen the Grand Canyon.
I've even hiked down into & back out of it.
It's still pretty unbelievable.
I've been to Seattle.
It's nice, but overcast a lot, & very spendy.

But I never believed that Australiastan exists.
Unlike the moon landings, it can't be real....it's just too weird.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I disagree, please see my last post.

You don't get to redefine words. It doesn't matter if you "agree" with the definition of knowledge. It is clearly defined and clearly understood.

Experience is not the only avenue to knowledge. It also includes education.

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge]

By choosing to omitting half the definition of knowledge, you cheat yourself of knowledge; thus; willful stupidity.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I'm done. Every asserted evidence that the world is flat has been soundly refuted.

To quote Han Solo: "Stupid conversation anyway ... "

 

[leibowde84]

I require this, and personal experience, to know one way or another.

If you haven't experienced something for yourself, then you don't really know about it, you only believe in it.

I'm not suggesting that I care to know one way or another on this topic. It's just that the round-Earthers, and perhaps some flat-Earthers, are pushing their belief as knowledge, when it isn't. I fully admit that my flat-earth belief is just that, a belief.

This ties in with my religious faith: I rejected religions which demanded beliefs, preferring knowledge promised instead by early Buddhism. I suppose that my participation in this thread is more about belief vs knowledge than about the shape of the Earth.

Knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty. It requires understanding of something that is indisputably the case. You have yet to provide valid reasoning for doubting the evidence that shows the spherical nature of the earth. Every point you made has been refuted, so the spherical nature of the earth is still indisputable, according to the evidence. But, all in all, this thread seems like a waste of time. By your logic, you are relying completely on subjective experience, but subjective experience is flawed and unreliable. That is why verifiable evidence is better.

 

[allfoak]

Knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty. It requires understanding of something that is indisputably the case. You have yet to provide valid reasoning for doubting the evidence that shows the spherical nature of the earth. Every point you made has been refuted, so the spherical nature of the earth is still indisputable, according to the evidence. But, all in all, this thread seems like a waste of time. By your logic, you are relying completely on subjective experience, but subjective experience is flawed and unreliable. That is why verifiable evidence is better.

All of the evidence shown has been disputed.
Not one thing has been proven true here either way.

If you all want to know the truth you must find out for yourself.
Or you can just accept what you have been told.