Was Earth Flat?

[PureX]

So, here's where we stand:

Me: there's no distinction between how things appear to people and how it is to them.
Your response: nothing that negates (rebuts) that. Both of our comments might be correct.
Status: Discussion ready for a verdict.

Me: We can know things about the past with a very high degree of assurance, and here are an illustrative example using a murdered corpse.

YOUR degree of assurance is irrelevant to anyone but you. And yet it seems to constantly cause you (and others here) to assume that anyone that does not share in this 'scientific surety' of yours is a fool (questfortruth and the ancient peoples he seems to align himself with as an example). And yet you and everyone else here are all in the same boat, as we are all thinking we understand the Earth based on how we currently experience it, while completely ignoring the indeterminate amount of depth and complexity within the massive set of interrelated phenomena that presents itself as "the Earth". All I'm trying to suggest, here, is that we stop pretending that we are so smart just because we are able to conceptualize and therefor experience the Earth differently (spherical instead of flat) than people 2,000 years ago did. Especially when this does not seem to have increased our wisdom even a little bit. Because doing this is blinding us to what they DID know that we do not. And it's also blinding us to what we still don't know that may be of great importance to us in the near future. All this phony arrogance and intelligence based on the 'almighty power of science' is not serving us well. It's making us willfully ignorant at a time when we need to be humbling ourselves, and be particularly humble and open minded toward our understanding and relationship with the Earth that sustains us ... before we destroy it.

 

[Suave]

Because ideas of Atheism cannot ever be proven, then only two answers are possible:
1. God exists,
2. we do not know.
This means, that God must exist.

Any brain is more complex than the Universe. Hence, if Bob feels or thinks something, it surely can be a real thing because his brain is more important than the entire Universe.
For example, many say that Earth is not a globe but a flat disk. Why? People are not crazy.
The planet was a flat disk in the past, and people feel it through the "genetic memory" or "ancestorial memory."
More in:
Was Earth Flat?

The official list of dogmas is Absolute Knowledge for theists. One dogma is: True Church's interpretation of Bible is true.
The Church dogmas are a fixed reference points. This means, that if John says that Bible is wrong, the Bible is not wrong, but John is blaspheming religion. Earth was Flat.

God is Omnipotent. He changed flat disk into globe while Great Flood. OK?

cOLTER: "If flat earth or the Israelites vastly exaggerated flood story wasn't in the Bible, then people would dismiss the stories as silly myths."
Now in 2022AD it is better? Book told people of BC era that Earth is Flat to be taken seriously. But does God considered that the Book will be read in AD era, on 2022 AD? What about us? Paradox. The solution: Earth was flat. Now it is not flat. Miracle.

Centuries before Christianity was practiced, knowledge of the spherical Earth was well documented and scripted onto scrolls stored in the Library of Alexandria until a mob of angry Christian Crusaders attacked the library's polytheistic scroll keepers and then the Christian Crusaders proceeded to torch the library's texts of knowledge into ashes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Questfortruth may be wrong about the Earth having once been flat. But he's not wrong about the blinding arrogance that the near worship of science has caused and is causing in modern culture.

This view is not much better than the view expressed by Questfortruth who shares this view of science. In fact, your view is more dangerous than the off-the-wall nonsense proposed by @Questforturth.

There is no such thing as 'worship of science'. Scientists come from every imaginable religious background and worship science by the English simple English definitions of science and religion. Scientists individually believe and not believe, and worship or not worship as they choose.

 

[PureX]

This view is not much better than the view expressed by Questfortruth who shares this view of science. In fact, your view is more dangerous than the off-the-wall nonsense proposed by @Questforturth.

It's more "dangerous" because it's true. And because it's logical. But it's only "dangerous" to the scientism crowd, who really do believe that science is the only means of determining truth and reality because I am directly contradicting that position.

I have no problems with science, or with what we learn from engaging in it. I have a problem with people turning it into the fountain of truth, to the exclusion of all other possible means and methods of understanding our experience of existence. Questfortruth is picking up on something, in his own 'unique' way, that is really happening.

There is no such thing as 'worship of science'.

Yes, my friend, there is. We can quibble over the use of that exact term, but that's just semantic obfuscation. The fact is that there are a lot of people these days (and on here) that really do believe that science is the only pathway to truth and is the definer of reality. To the point that they are dismissing any and all other possible methods as mostly irrelevant, silly, nonsense. (Except, of course, when it happens to co-sign their bias.)

Scientists come from every imaginable religious background and worship science by the English simple English definitions of science and religion. Scientists individually believe and not believe, and worship or not worship as they choose.

I am not talking about scientists. I have no issue with them, or with science. The point I'm making has nothing at all to do with actual science.

 

[questfortruth]

Questfortruth is picking up on something, in his own 'unique' way, that is really happening.

Thank you, Believer in God. The missing link is this:
Before the Flood, There Was No Moon., page 1
Because it indicates that the Cosmology prior to the Great Flood was different from current one.

 

[PureX]

Thank you, Believer in God. The missing link is this:
Before the Flood, There Was No Moon., page 1
Because it indicates that the Cosmology prior to the Great Flood was different from current one.

Anything is possible in a mythical landscape. The real question is what ideal is the myth trying to convey to us? And what does that ideal mean to us, today?

 

[questfortruth]

And what does that ideal mean to us, today?

This thread suggests that:
1. People, who believe in Flat Earth are not crazy.
2. Earth is not Flat.
3. Earth was Flat before the Great Flood.
4. Holy Bible has not lied.
5. International Agreement called "Antarctic treaty" is remnant of the fact that Earth was Flat.
Agencies do not want people to recall the past memories. There is nothing special, but the people, if they visit the former edge of the world will recall the past through "ancestorial memory." And then they prove the God. But the satan forbids it, he will start the war between theists and atheists. So, the Status Quo has to be hold.

 

[PureX]

This thread suggests that:
1. People, who believe in Flat Earth are not crazy.
2. Earth is not Flat.
3. Earth was Flat before the Great Flood.
4. Holy Bible has not lied.

I think that "believing in" things is usually a mistake for we humans. By that I mean that when we say we "believe in X" we are saying that our opinions about 'X' are the truth of 'X', not just our opinion. But in nearly every case, all we have are our surmised opinions about 'X'. We do not actually know the truth. So when we allow ourselves to "believe in" these things, we are essentially being dishonest with ourselves about them, and we're creating a bias that causes us to reject any other possible understanding of 'X'.

And it's unnecessary, because we don't have to 'believe in' anything, really. We can simply accept the information that we have, and whatever conclusions that information leads us to, and leave it at that. So that if more or new information becomes available that would lead us to a different conclusion, we can easily adopt that new conclusion. There is no bias created by our 'belief' that has to be overcome.

Also, it is our "believing in" things that tends to generate so much argument among us all. Because once we "believe in X", 'X' has to be true. And anyone that disagrees that 'X' is true (as we believe it to be) must then be shown to be wrong, or otherwise justifiably disregarded. And they, of course, respond the same way in return, and the arguments ensue. When all this could be avoided simply by dropping this habit of "believing in" our own opinions. So that our opinions can return to just being an opinion, ... that can change without us having to accept our being 'wrong'.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans exist first then you think.

You name yourself the thinker a theist.

Everything exists. You're aware.

You know minerals to use medical applications for bio first. Herbal from garden.

Food water supplied. You live then you die. Basic advice. No argument allowed for life survival. Said legal.

That natural status says no science even exists.

As just because you name your awareness of earths products doesn't have the claim I own it's natural history about why it exists.

No science.

The argument science is for design controlled by humans to claim laws to apply reactions for design the machine. To force react.

Totally. Just the machine.

A machine first does not exist.

You aren't first placed being on earth either.

So you aren't alpha nor are you first or number one.

Intelligence says your conscious bio being is dominion. By how it expresses wisdom. Bio life itself only.

No science is even involved.

Basic human intelligence is highest intelligence.

Reason... as it's about your owned self survival first.

You say to any human man. A thinker. As a human your highest creator position is sex as life continuance itself.

The human woman you create with is a human woman who you are not.

Conscious self natural identification says you created continuance with a woman. Female. To create only exact place in mind brain natural identity.

What you quote for machine conditions was always destruction effects.

You have been a defected mind inheritance since you applied the unnatural practice designed controlled by human men machines. Caused transmitters not natural to ground mass ownership as mass.

You changed them yourself by machine held fixed converting mass constants. Known. Taught about yourself by bad behaviour...to yourself.

As earth is fused. It does not transmit as the radiating mass became rock in a space vacuum.

You thought about dusts that were attacked earth owning an atmosphere that converted also as rock converted. So attack change the sun owned. Both body mass changed in that exact event same.

You don't own it ever. So your less of your human son self. Lesson. I learnt says Mr egotist I was wrong.

Situation today. Your human man ego.

History humans were bio mutated. The cause energy attacked biology only mainly water constituted. Destroyed health.

It's nuclear situation salting.

Science mind of a man human lying says our bio life came from nuclear energy and salt water into fresh water.

By past studies of bio life attacked by humans sciences known outcome a cause effect.

Instead of you stating it's a human scientists confession. You try to convince humanity biology was invented created then

When suns attack kept natural light voiding in the vacuum historic.

Is determined human lying.

Legal was a summation choice by humans thinking. As a status to impose punishment for lying.

Thoughts only how to help keep life holy and safe as the theories terms of legal.

Homosexuality was human science man's criminal act against himself.

As science did change humans consciousness the legal position known.

 

[questfortruth]

I think that "believing in" things is usually a mistake for we humans.

Your philosophy is not different from mine, but I do not destroy Faith. We do not need to ban such words as "Faith" or "To believe in" from our world to make the world a better place.
Why? Faith is staying true to the Knowledge. For example, Bob knows he must walk in the park every day to be healthy. But he is not faithful to this Knowledge because he sits all day at home watching TV and playing with a PC. So, Bob knows that he must go out, but he does not believe in it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's more "dangerous" because it's true. And because it's logical. But it's only "dangerous" to the scientism crowd, who really do believe that science is the only means of determining truth and reality because I am directly contradicting that position.

This grossly and dishonestly misrepresents science and scientists again . . .

Scientists and the Methodological Naturalism at the foundation of science fully realize that science can only investigate and falsify hypotheses and theories concerning ONLY the physical nature of our physical existence. Sure there are scientists who believe in Ontological Naturalism, and only our physical existence is all that exists, but this too cannot be falsified by MEthodological Naturalism, and not published in any reputable scientific journal, because it is 'belief' and NOT science. Atheists nor agnostics can claim science supports their beliefs.

Scientism is vague scapegoatish name-calling bogus assertion that some theists use to justify themselves,.and not based on science as science is.

I have no problems with science or with what we learn from engaging in it. I have a problem with people turning it into the fountain of truth,

It would help if you could cite scientific journal references to justify your claim. Please avoid layman articles particularly written by non-scientists.. . .

based on the accusations in your posts you do have a problem with science as science without religious agendas nor anything else attached creating bogus phantasms of scientism. Based on Methodological Naturalism science in and of itself cannot be a 'fountain of truth, because the concept of truth does not exist in science. All theories and hypotheses are subject to change and indeed found false or replaced. The knowledge of science is not fixed to the point of being called 'truth.;

 

[questfortruth]

the concept of truth does not exist in science.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said you knew as a Theist that the sun held in a void vacuum was in fact a Fixed consuming energy mass as a O maths time calculus. The body time O. Sun energy it's god not earth.

Cooling bursting as a reactive sun is mechanical action only and isn't the sun.

By human Theist who Invented timed calculus. A humans only experience. Via light cooled atmosphere.

Father is life human continuance by sex. As adult man. All men in fact equal the same no matter what title you give yourself.

Human baby son man theist isn't about life's human continuance. As a theist was the humans teaching. Why not listening to his humans father human first advice gained life's biological sacrifice.

It isn't about separate types of men. It was about thinking states of falseness.

The legally known taught position. For all humans legal equal rights to life on earth position.

Chose life sacrifice of family human by not listening to adult human man's first known aware advices. His owned aware teaching being a human father was about why his human life continued by sex. Not any other reason.

As the sun might release metal UFO fallout yet by law the vacuum void sucks it back into a mass machine amount. He caused to fall himself.

Man by all machine terms....as he versioned theories the reaction about his machine not being any sun mass. His machines only mass cause earth ground. Not natural in any terms.

UFO outcome man's science thesis he knew had caused. Never controlled as he controls ground mass converting in machine only.

Sun mass was direct sink hole.

Which is not sciences first reasoning energy is only in mass as mass itself. He doesnt own it first.

Then his machines mass is what man controls also is not the energies formula. Yet he used ground mass energy already.

So vacuum puts it back into balls by size amount as it sits burning falling in gases that then in cooling keeping claimed why life was kept safe ...sucks it back into burning light position. As it's the fuels only position as a sun in space. Heavens alight.

Natural light in voiding vacuum...like a sun.

Close to earth life.

Close enough to burn us all to death is the answer.

Theists wants a resource not for life...just for a machines position only. Which in reality is all earth based sealed products only. Already water sealed. Suns light mass isn't.

Natural energy position in mass by science of men.

Says there's no new resource to make future electricity. The exact and real told man's answer. As a human.

Ignored. Yet he told himself already his human truth.

So instead said I'll get it via the atmosphere instead. The UFO machine he themes he says isn't man's it belongs to the sun mass only. In the sun mass by law.

O body mass energy in voiding vacuum zero. Energy place. Non mechanical.

As the sun is burning it's owned mass as a machine in other words. Nothing like man's machines at all.

With a new evil theme. Not about life continuance at all. As he already knew nuclear UFO cause to earths mass he had instigated himself. In humans past by human science.

Not by the law a sun. The exact human advice. The sun didn't open new sin. Man of science had himself.

So he's even going against the sun by thesis.

As a man of science who stated man's sin was when the sun to earth owned sin as sink holes. The sun however hadn't caused it is his lie.

God only as mass owned mass of sin. He copied caused it himself as a scientist against earths natural mass law in space terms.. all direct earth mass answers.

Not his equation ever.

He knew earth had ground transmitters in heavens cause only now because science had already released it in the past by science machine causes. Out of earths sealed mass.

Why we had been kept sick ever since as Jesus event that had stopped sink holes forming everywhere. But had been removing ground waters heavens mass.

So already cooling stopping life's bio destruction has been achieved naturally.

Jesus hence hadn't stopped their new sink holes forming it stopped other sin holes forming. Was the actual teaching. Science caused earths mass to empty out earths entombed God body mass. Knew they had.

It had been stopped by cosmic law void only. Otherwise no life would be living now.

As fused held dust doesn't transmit very far and rock is rock as radiation became a part of forming rock in the void vacuum. So it owns it to be position the rock.

What it never owned as extra radiation was in the vacuum void sucked away from burning mass to be sun star wandering asteroids mass.

Fuel of earths heavens not sun direct ever. It's star fuel only.

Earth already held a fixed position as it had evolved cooled it was never ever instant snap frozen. The laws reading.

Why stars wander and planets don't. Stars instant snap frozen owned less mass energy by body type.

So the UFO now uses lots of water to cool. It needs more water mass than what supports life's bio mass. In heavens only position.

Men know the advice already as it sucks up water cooling out of ground sea or fresh water mass.

As a ground metal is melt position first only also in Alchemy uses. Lots of water by mass to become a metal. Known. Not anywhere near the slight mass of water of our bio life.

Otherwise simply we'd all be metal no biology.

Biology lives in less water than what a metal needs to cool from melt.

Laws known.

Clouds use lots of waters mass that natural gas water heavens doesn't. Clouds bio lifes protection body above waters mass.

If ufo gets released to ground again where water was once but isn't now... then new sink holes appear.

You knew all this advice already as it's man's heard thesis advice I'm hearing.

Why any life at any moment can be ground attacked. By suns fuel fallout.

Also known. As in AI advice it asks can it be used as a weapon against man by AI terms as data advices ... forming worded explanations.

The heavenly Ai advice as data gives other advices than what ground AI answers ....as it's reviewing by computer relay different mass says as worded explanations.

Man's machine AI human isnt any type bio by image sound voice. It isn't using natural bios life biology living in bio body mass recorded position.

Psychic readings already proves it doesn't. As explanations. Bio is living the experience is not a machine.

As your technology is recording is the state. Exact. Only records what machines are using.

So your evil minds are informed it's not using all of biologies life recorded position and you claim it equals electricity. By intent thought about only.

Not it is electricity it's a summised theme. Intent only not fact.

As we aren't a mass energy formula ever. Said by mathematicians.

Lightning is gods heavens reaction by mass calculus in heavens to a machines fixed position...I want says science. So lightning by God should be striking it. His fixed position machines calculated I want mass.

From the heavens.

Metal causes. Fixed only. Not scattered as cooling in heavens first. Fixed position exact.

Life is already water mass biology living. Not any recording as first position is our owned biology itself. Ownership is first status in order. Self one.

What you knowingly lie about as man's data tells me so. As you never allow any other human owning to own anything including their own life.

Why I know what human want and greedy humans are ignoring today as their own scientific advice.

It's why ground lightning struck where the new science transmitted communication system was informing all studies. As on white house lawn sin hole.

Then huge lightning as gods strikes this year. Cooled event was changing moving away from causes origin. In same vicinity.

Communication by mass feedback as machines system to a world aren't a colliders machines advice.

Hit right where you said it would. Communication only status. By gods owned heavens not in any man's control.

A collider not communicating technology the answer.

 

[PureX]

Your philosophy is not different from mine, but I do not destroy Faith. We do not need to ban such words as "Faith" or "To believe in" from our world to make the world a better place.

Faith and belief are two different things. Faith is trusting that what one hopes to be true, will be, even though one knows it may not. Belief is a blind presumption that something is true by excluding the possibility that it's not. Belief is the false pretense of knowledge.

 

[PureX]

This grossly and dishonestly misrepresents science and scientists again . . .

Yes, I know. That's why I have no issue with science, as I have already stated, but rather with the 'scientism' crowd that falsely elevates science to being the arbiter of all truth. For some reason you are not grasping the difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I know.

You apparently do not know, based on your poata.

That's why I have no issue with science, as I have already stated, but rather with the 'scientism' crowd that falsely elevates science to being the arbiter of all truth. For some reason, you are not grasping the difference.

You have failed to define this 'scientism crowd' with references from actual science references.

For some reason, you are not grasping the issue of what is 'science for science; as it is in the real world. There is no such thing as 'truth' in science.

Please respond with references

Scientists and the Methodological Naturalism at the foundation of science fully realize that science can only investigate and falsify hypotheses and theories concerning ONLY the physical nature of our physical existence. Sure there are scientists who believe in Ontological Naturalism, and only our physical existence is all that exists, but this too cannot be falsified by MEthodological Naturalism, and not published in any reputable scientific journal, because it is 'belief' and NOT science. Atheists nor agnostics can claim science supports their beliefs.

Scientism is vague scapegoatish name-calling bogus assertion that some theists use to justify themselves,.and not based on science as science is.

I have no problems with science or with what we learn from engaging in it. I have a problem with people turning it into the fountain of truth,

It would help if you could cite scientific journal references to justify your claim. Please avoid layman articles particularly written by non-scientists.. . .

based on the accusations in your posts you do have a problem with science as science without religious agendas nor anything else attached creating bogus phantasms of scientism. Based on Methodological Naturalism science in and of itself cannot be a 'fountain of truth, because the concept of truth does not exist in science. All theories and hypotheses are subject to change and indeed found false or replaced. The knowledge of science is not fixed to the point of being called 'truth.;

 

[shunyadragon]

Need scientific reference to justify this unethical irresponsible, dishonest claim based on a way far out ancient religious agenda.

Youtube ignorant references to songs and layman misinformation are not acceptable.

Peer review respectable scientific journals and texts make absolutely no reference to the claims of 'truth' in science.

 

[questfortruth]

Peer review respectable scientific journals and texts make absolutely no reference to the claims of 'truth' in science.

Either Truth or Lie. If there is no truth in Pythagorean Theorem, it is wrong theorem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Either Truth or Lie. If there is no truth in Pythagorean Theorem, it is wrong theorem.

We are not discussing individual math theorems, we are talking about the fact that there is no 'truth' in science, not math. Math is a tool of science and everyday life and not a matter of truth nor, lies, or falsehoods.

Still waiting for citations. concerning scientists claiming science represents 'truth.' You're dodging the main issue here.

Peer review respectable scientific journals and texts make absolutely no reference to the claims of 'truth' in science.

Note: If Aristotle is correct about affinities our physical existence is potentially infinite qnd eternal without a beginning.

 

[PureX]

You have failed to define this 'scientism crowd' with references from actual science references.

Huh? Why would actual science provide any sort of information about the popular cult of 'scientism'?

From Wikipedia

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

For some reason, you are not grasping the issue of what is 'science for science; as it is in the real world.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. What is "science for science", and what does it have to do with 'scientism'?

There is no such thing as 'truth' in science.

I agree. But nevertheless, there is a whole pop cult these days that think science has everything to do with determining truth and reality.

Please respond with references

All you have to do is read the posts around here. There are plenty of examples. You asking for "references from actual science references" (whatever that is) might even be considered an example of 'scientism'. The idea that nothing can be deemed true until the "science references" say so.

Scientists and the Methodological Naturalism at the foundation of science fully realize that science can only investigate and falsify hypotheses and theories concerning ONLY the physical nature of our physical existence. Sure there are scientists who believe in Ontological Naturalism, and only our physical existence is all that exists, but this too cannot be falsified by MEthodological Naturalism, and not published in any reputable scientific journal, because it is 'belief' and NOT science. Atheists nor agnostics can claim science supports their beliefs.

I agree. And yet there are many among us that still "believe in" science as the fountainhead of all truth and the determiner of what exists and what doesn't.

Scientism is vague scapegoatish name-calling bogus assertion that some theists use to justify themselves,.and not based on science as science is.

Purex wrote: "I have no problems with science or with what we learn from engaging in it. I have a problem with people turning it into the fountain of truth."

It would help if you could cite scientific journal references to justify your claim. Please avoid layman articles particularly written by non-scientists.. . .

You still can't seem to grasp that this is not of or about actual science, but is rather about a cut of ignorance based on the idea that science is the only viable pathway to understanding truth and reality. And your own obsessive insistence that I site some sort of scientific journal about something that has nothing to do with the practice of science tends to indicate to me that YOU may be in that camp as well.

... based on the accusations in your posts you do have a problem with science as science

I have stated many times, now, that I have no issue with science. Only with the irrational yet common belief that science is the only viable pathway to understanding truth or determining the limits of reality. But for some reason you're having great difficulty recognizing this.

And by the way, I am not religious. So I have no religious agenda.