The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[leibowde84]

Not sure what you are all arguing about, it is not my fault you won't accept that you have only been taught half of the picture.
And it is not my fault that you are unable to see the other half of the picture.

This is the very definition of a "cop-out". If you are convinced, tell us why you are convinced and try to convince us. This is a discussion/debate forum, for crying out loud.

 

[leibowde84]

Things are still subjective for me if I haven't experienced something for myself

This is a self-contradicting statement. Did you mean "things are still subjective for them if I haven't experienced something for myself"?

 

[Parsimony]

Actually a flat earth is much more simple.
The complications associated with the current ball earth understanding are numerous.

Not when it comes to (1) the assumption of world-wide conspiracy vs. no world-wide conspiracy and (2) the scientific consequences.

*A round Earth is a natural consequence of the law of gravity. I do not know of any force which would naturally result in a flat Earth. An explanation would also be needed to explain why the Earth is flat when the Moon and other astronomical bodies are round. What makes the Earth unique in terms of the forces affecting it?
*The round Earth model requires fewer forces than a flat Earth. Gravity not only explains the force holding us to the ground and why the Earth is round, but it also explains the orbits of the Sun, Moon and planets, whereas it cannot be invoked in a flat Earth cosmology. A different force than gravity has to be used to explain why we are held to the Earth (because, if gravity was truly responsible, it would have crushed the Earth into a spherical shape). A different force than gravity also has to be invoked to explain the motion of the Sun, Moon and planets (as they do not follow orbits that are consistent with a gravity-centrifugal force model). Somehow, they are levitating above the flat Earth. The round Earth model is more parsimonious in this respect.
*I've seen "gravity" on a flat Earth explained as the Earth accelerating upwards at a force of 1 G. This would require yet another force to explain this movement. If this was indeed the case, then the Earth would be travelling faster and faster all the time. Eventually, even the dust particles in space would be moving quickly enough relative to the Earth's movement to cause severe damage when they impact it.
*The round Earth model can explain plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions and the Earth's internal heat as a consequence of the Earth's initial formation from gravity. Where does the internal heat come from on a flat Earth? Likewise, the residual heat combined with Earth's rotation serves as an explanation for the Earth's magnetic field (which arises as a natural consequence of flowing liquid metal). This explanation would be unavailable on a flat, non-rotating Earth.
*The atmosphere is held on by gravity on a round Earth. Something else has to be holding it to a flat Earth. If it is somehow held there by a physical barrier, it would have to be composed of a substance with a significantly higher strength-to-weight ratio than any material we know of, as it would have to be tens of thousands of miles across. Also, how would meteors ever crash to the surface of the Earth if there is a physical barrier in the way? Or are meteors another part of the conspiracy? The gravity-held atmosphere is the simpler explanation.
*As I pointed out in an earlier post, the laws of aerodynamics would have to be different for travel times by plane on a flat Earth to be workable.
*Gravity-powered nuclear fusion explains how the Sun shines very well in a round Earth model (including its composition and spectrum), but cannot be invoked when the Sun is assumed to be smaller than the Earth (which is the case in most flat Earth models I've heard of). Guess the Sun's spectrum must also be a part of the conspiracy...
*Between two models capable of explaining a phenomenon, the one which doesn't require some kind of global suppression of knowledge for hundreds or thousands of years without slip-ups and a questionable goal is strongly favored by Occam's Razor (especially if the best evidence for the conspiracy one can drum up is "if the Earth is flat, then there must be a conspiracy!").
*If the Earth really was flat, then how did the whole round-Earth thing start in the first place? Some group would have to have started it, but for what possible reason justifying spending so many international financial and political resources throughout expansive eras of history on it? It would be massively easier to just let the flat Earth thing keep going if that's how reality really worked.

It's possible. I have seen little circumstantial evidence that those places don't exist. On the other hand, I've seen much circumstantial evidence that the earth may be flat.

I think I've seen you mention one thing (seeing something that should be beyond the horizon, was it?) What are some others you know of?

 

[leibowde84]

As I stated, my worldview is different. In my cosmology, philosophy, and theology, the "I" is the center of his or her own universe, essentially the creator. There is no "objectivity" apart from the "I".

How do you describe things that are experienced "subjectively" by two different individuals? For example, Rick and Jim both see a chair. When water is poured on the chair, it gets wet. Because both Rick and Jim see the same chair being effected in the same way, the chair is (to the best of their knowledge) is an objective reality. It exists beyond each of their subjective experience.

Now, obviously, we could be in some kind of Matrix situation where everything is an illusion, but that would be an EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE way of looking at the world. Progress would be impossible if everything we experience as real was thought to be an illusion. Talk about a meaningless existence.

 

[allfoak]

This is the very definition of a "cop-out". If you are convinced, tell us why you are convinced and try to convince us. This is a discussion/debate forum, for crying out loud.

I have said this over and over again....
I cannot convince anyone of anything.
If you want to know what i know you must do what i do.
I am sorry if i sound rude, it is not my intent.
I have posted many many things on this forum that describes what it is that i do and even in some cases, how it is done.

Everyone can know all things for themselves if they are willing to separate the true from false within themselves.
Logic does not have to be abandoned to intuition or visa-versa.
On the contrary, all things must be in balance to become whole.

This is a very difficult subject because it involves an understanding of one's self on a level that is foreign to most people.
The hermetic principles can be used to understand this subject once we understand ourselves well enough to even think about these things.

I do not accept your allegation that i have copped-out as you say.
What it is that you reject (flat earth) has been explained to you sufficiently enough for you to learn the truth for yourself.
In order for you to learn the truth for yourself you must (i say it again) learn who you are well enough to understand what is being taught.
It is impossible for anyone to do the work for you.


Much of what you need to know can be found in my journal.
It is just a beginning.

 

[Skwim]

Why, in 2016, do people STILL Believe the Earth IS FLAT?!

Actually, I don't think any of them do. More than anything it's an attention grabber. What better way to get people to talk to you than contend that something absurd is true. Then there's the gaming aspect: see how far I can take my absurdity before having to 1) come clean, 2) start taking gibberish and answering questions with questions, or 3) fold up the sideshow and stop posting.

 

[allfoak]

There is no way @Parsimony that i could ever explain all of that to you in a way that you would one, accept it, and two, even understand it.
I am sorry, there is a good deal on the internet to look at, that is what i do.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Actually, I don't think any of them do. More than anything it's an attention grabber. What better way to get people to talk to you than contend that something absurd is true. Then there's the gaming aspect: see how far I can take my absurdity before having to 1) come clean, 2) start taking gibberish and answering questions with questions, or 3) fold up the sideshow and stop posting.

That works.

 

[allfoak]

Actually, I don't think any of them do. More than anything it's an attention grabber. What better way to get people to talk to you than contend that something absurd is true. Then there's the gaming aspect: see how far I can take my absurdity before having to 1) come clean, 2) start taking gibberish and answering questions with questions, or 3) fold up the sideshow and stop posting.

I would call that i very bad characterization of something and someone that you do not understand.
I have done none of those things.

 

[Parsimony]

There is no way @Parsimony that i could ever explain all of that to you in a way that you would one, accept it, and two, even understand it.
I am sorry, there is a good deal on the internet to look at, that is what i do.

Already been there, done that. I was once a part of the Flat Earth Society forum with the naïve intention of convincing them that they were wrong. Anyone with conspiracy-thinking is really hard to get through to, since the conspiracy itself can always be used as an explanation for why no evidence exists for said conspiracy in the first place.

 

[Skwim]

I would call that i very bad characterization of something and someone that you do not understand.
I have done none of those things.

You still have time.

 

[allfoak]

Already been there, done that. I was once a part of the Flat Earth Society forum with the naïve intention of convincing them that they were wrong. Anyone with conspiracy-thinking is really hard to get through to, since the conspiracy itself can always be used as an explanation for why no evidence exists for said conspiracy in the first place.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Parsimony]

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

Okay, understood.

 

[allfoak]

You still have time.

 

[buddhist]

This is a self-contradicting statement. Did you mean "things are still subjective for them if I haven't experienced something for myself"?

Perhaps this is clearer ..."In my perspective, their experiences are still subjective for them ..."

 

[buddhist]

I think I've seen you mention one thing (seeing something that should be beyond the horizon, was it?) What are some others you know of?

I think I shared this link in an earlier post.

 

[buddhist]

How do you describe things that are experienced "subjectively" by two different individuals? For example, Rick and Jim both see a chair. When water is poured on the chair, it gets wet. Because both Rick and Jim see the same chair being effected in the same way, the chair is (to the best of their knowledge) is an objective reality. It exists beyond each of their subjective experience.

Now, obviously, we could be in some kind of Matrix situation where everything is an illusion, but that would be an EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE way of looking at the world. Progress would be impossible if everything we experience as real was thought to be an illusion. Talk about a meaningless existence.

Yes, the wet chair is subjectively objective for Rick and Jim. If I haven't experienced the wet chair for myself, and I believe that Rick and Jim are reliable persons, I would lean towards the belief that they are speaking the truth as they understand it.

 

[Skwim]

Nice, I guess. Whatever it's suppose to mean.

Out of curiosity, as a flat earther, and one who seems to take A Vestigial Mote's animation in post #257 as accurate, just how large is the Sun and how far is it from Earth?

 

[allfoak]

This discussion has progressed to a point now where i think i can say this.

What is knowledge seems to be what is at issue here.
Is a child born with an empty head that needs filling or are they born with everything that they need already to live out their lives to its fullest?
This is a very important question because it decides what knowledge is and where it is found.
If i have to rely on what someone else tells me in order to know anything then i am completely mentally impoverished.
I know nothing for myself.

If i understand that there is a source of knowledge within us that vastly exceeds all of the books written, then i have no reason not know the truth of a matter.

 

[allfoak]

Nice, I guess. Whatever it's suppose to mean.

Out of curiosity, as a flat earther, and one who seems to take A Vestigial Mote's animation in post #257 as accurate, just how large is the Sun and how far is it from Earth?

I do not know.
The information exists on the internet.
It is not really that important to me.

I don't even talk about this with people normally.
And i wouldn't be now if it wasn't for this thread.
I jumped in thinking that sharing my perspective might help someone.
I have no intent in trying to convince anyone that my perspective is correct.
I understand it would be a wasted effort.

I am more than willing to discuss my perspective but i see no reason why i should have to be judged for the understanding i have.
It seems to me if we spent more time talking to each other rather than trying to prove the other wrong, we might learn something.