Debunking Flat Earth

[Lost4words]

OK, gottcha... Now.. let's look at the claim... The author is infinitely superior.. Yet the bibles main and most important message is not misunderstood. It is only when mere mortals go digging into the vast levels of the bible, where it becomes quickly obvious that the author is Omniscient and of infinitely greater intelligence than any reader..
Thus, as a reader reaches the limits of their comprehension... they will misunderstand and confuse concepts.

This, of course, is the same for any literature.. Just so happens that the author of the bible is of infinite intelligence. The more you study, the more it opens up.

If I understand your complaint... would it be that this all knowing, all loving... eternal omniscient being should have wrote a book that was plain, simple and totally understandable?

Ask yourself again and then remember why you don't play Tic tac toe for years.. or why you read a normal novel once or twice but then no more...

We become bored and we need challenges to keep us digging and reading and researching....

In the end... it will all be clear... all will be revealed.. To the child, their simple questions and ponderings and such will be answered... To the intelligent scholar... the same thing.. things will all make sense when all is revealed.

Anyway... if you want to debate this more... Open a thread in the proper section.

Something cant be right? Why?

Because i am agreeing with you quite a bit! Lol

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, it's simple enough as words written in relation to each other. But it refers to actual things, and makes a series of assumptions about them. A God, apparently not smart enough to realise that you can't 'make' people agree on anything, or even have a go at finding out about something. Whether you take God to be real or not doesn't matter, there is a character 'god' about whom a great deal is said and written. It assumes the existence of some hitherto undiscovered mechanism whereby people's basic nature as people can be bypassed and linked in some fashion to a universal understanding and acceptance of something that presumably they have all read with equal seriousness. And a whole series of other things. So no, it isn't simple, it would be simple if it referred to nothing else, or to an abstract idea, but it doesn't. It refers to actual things and makes a whole range of assumptions about them.

Those are your assumptions about what it implies. But that's OK, it got you thinking critically, which was the point.

 

[morse86]

Years ago my wife and I cruised French Polynesia--Tahiti, Raiatea, Bora Bora, etc. Bora Bora has 2 distinctive mountain peaks. Looking from the east, one is conical, and one is a butte that slopes downward. See the photo.

View attachment 263046

We sailed in on a nice clear day with good visibility. I was on deck with my binocs. As we approached the island, I first saw the very highest points of the 2 mountains. As we got closer, I could see the full tops of both mountains. As we got nearer still, the central masses of the mountains were visible. Getting still closer, I could see the mountain bases. And as we finally approached the shore, I saw both mountains in their entirety, along with the sea level features and the docks. Sailing in, the island appeared in stages from the top downward. This can only happen if our ship was approaching Bora Bora on a convex curved surface. And when we sailed away, the island disappeared in reverse--from the bottom up. Suppose we were sailing on a truly flat ocean. The island would appear small from a distance and become larger as we got nearer. But the entire island would always be visible. This doesn't happen. The features of the island appear and disappear in stages. Which means that we were approaching and leaving Bora Bora on a curved surface. This is clearly obvious to anyone with eyes in their head.

Binoculars?!?!?!? Is this the walmart type of binoculars?

Is that how rule out flat earth???


Forget the fact you should've seen the mountain LEANING away from you and then becoming 90 degrees as you approached closer.

 

[morse86]

It's just appalling how many people are so deceived.

The ISS is in the atomsphere with a fish eye lens. It's not in "$$$PACEEEEE". What the hell is it even doing up there? Wasting billions of dollars, that's what it's doing.
There is NO other place like earth....it doesn't matter how many "space dust" photos NASA shows us of trillions of miles away.
NASA's own tax payer funded engineers have given interviews on how they are still researching on getting past the van allen radiation belts.
NASA lost the technology and telemetry data to go to the moon, the national archiving act was passed in the 30s!!!!!!!


I mean I just don't get it, is something in the water???

 

[essentialsaltes]

Binoculars?!?!?!? Is this the walmart type of binoculars?

No, our special round earth binoculars that edit out the bottoms of mountains when we are far, but display them when we are near are extremely expensive. Can't find that at WalMart.

 

[Strathos]

It's just appalling how many people are so deceived.

The ISS is in the atomsphere with a fish eye lens.
There is NO other place like earth....it doesn't matter how many "space dust" photos NASA shows us of trillions of miles away.
NASA's own tax payer funded engineers have given interviews on how they are still researching on getting past the van allen radiation belts.
NASA lost the technology and telemetry data to go to the moon, the national archiving act was passed in the 30s!!!!!!!


I mean I just don't get it, is something in the water???

We still have the technology to go to the moon. It's just more practical and less expensive to send unmanned probes.

Of course, if the space program was all a lie from the beginning like you claim, then what would be the point of creating the narrative that we don't do manned moon missions anymore? If it's all made up, they might as well just say that astronauts still go to the moon on a regular basis. There would be nothing stopping them from faking that, according to you.

 

[JacksBratt]

We still have the technology to go to the moon. It's just more practical and less expensive to send unmanned probes.

Of course, if the space program was all a lie from the beginning like you claim, then what would be the point of creating the narrative that we don't do manned moon missions anymore? If it's all made up, they might as well just say that astronauts still go to the moon on a regular basis. There would be nothing stopping them from faking that, according to you.

They have to keep up the hoax... They cannot say that they are still going to the moon with manned missions.. how would they do the fake scenes now as people are technologically literate and would expect things that they cannot possibly do without actually going there.

Years ago technology was just crappy enough to pull it off..

Now, according to Elon... "It's gotta be real because it looks so fake".. Nuff said.

 

[Strathos]

They have to keep up the hoax... They cannot say that they are still going to the moon with manned missions.. how would they do the fake scenes now as people are technologically literate and would expect things that they cannot possibly do without actually going there.

Years ago technology was just crappy enough to pull it off..

Now, according to Elon... "It's gotta be real because it looks so fake".. Nuff said.

If that were the case, then footage from unmanned probes wouldn't be released either, yet that's very common today.

 

[morse86]

This is like me trying to explain "space is not real" to the teliecgivision robots when they try to explain space at the 4:04 mark:

 

[Strathos]

That's some weapons-grade projection there.

 

[morse86]

This is me trying to set this tax payer funded horse maneuver science about "$$$pace" back on real science at 1 minute mark:

 

[Strathos]

As long as we're posting silly videos:

 

[Kylie]

Forget the fact you should've seen the mountain LEANING away from you and then becoming 90 degrees as you approached closer.

Of course, at the distances involved, the summit would only be a little way further away than the point directly underneath it, and such a small distance would be almost impossible to spot without measuring equipment.

 

[46AND2]

Forget the fact you should've seen the mountain LEANING away from you and then becoming 90 degrees as you approached closer.

LOL! It IS leaning away from you less and less as you get closer. The problem is...at 70 miles away from the mountain, it leans about ONE degree away from you. If you think you should be able to notice--by eye, from 70 miles away--a mountain that is at 91 degrees instead of 90, you are out of your mind.

So funny. Perhaps THE worst argument I've ever seen for a flat earth.

 

[Tom 1]

Those are your assumptions about what it implies. But that's OK, it got you thinking critically, which was the point.

Sure, those are my assumptions about the quote. Taken logically, as it reads, it does mean those things - God could make/man would (not could, there’s no room for that in the logic of the statement) understand - are built into it, thinking of the sort ‘an omniscient God could make a round square, he hasn’t, therefore he isn’t omniscient’ underlies the idea of it. The problem as I see it is that people take an idea like that as see it as an actual representation of something, whether that is a fictional character or a real God it’s the sort of thinking that you can see in places like this Internet forum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

‘an omniscient God could make a round square, he hasn’t, therefore he isn’t omniscient’ underlies the idea of it.

Well, not really; that doesn't make sense - omniscience is about knowledge, not action, and a round square is an oxymoron, impossible by definition. The suggestion is that an omnipotent entity could communicate clearly and effectively so as not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

The problem as I see it is that people take an idea like that as see it as an actual representation of something, whether that is a fictional character or a real God it’s the sort of thinking that you can see in places like this Internet forum.

These kinds of questions have been discussed in philosophy and theology for thousands of years before there were internet forums.

Perhaps your conception of God is less capable than the omnipotent entity of popular imagination.

 

[Tom 1]

The suggestion is that an omnipotent entity could communicate clearly and effectively so as not to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Misunderstood or misinterpreted in what way? And by who?

 

[Tom 1]

Perhaps your conception of God is less capable than the omnipotent entity of popular imagination.

Nope.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Misunderstood or misinterpreted in what way? And by who?

In any way not intended by the communicator, and by those it was addressed to.

 

[Tom 1]

In any way not intended by the communicator, and by those it was addressed to.

Can you be more specific?