Debunking Flat Earth

[lasthero]

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

While I love wrestling and William Regal, it might be a bit more productive if you actually posted things that supported your argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you be more specific?

Many believers say that the bible/scripture is God's word and that God is omnipotent. They also agree that the bible/scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood.

So God is the communicator, the communication is the bible/scripture, and those it was addressed to are said to be humankind - but in particular, believers in that God.

An omnipotent God could communicate His word so that it would not be misinterpreted or misunderstood (particularly as He is said to be the creator of humanity and so would know what is required to achieve that).

Not being a believer, I'm not really in a position to be more specific; I'm just taking claims they've made at face value.

 

[lasthero]

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.

I don’t know. That’s bad, but I’d say that it’s not quite as bad as people claiming that water would be falling off the bottom of the Earth if the planet was round.

 

[Tom 1]

Many believers say that the bible/scripture is God's word and that God is omnipotent. They also agree that the bible/scripture is misinterpreted and misunderstood.

So God is the communicator, the communication is the bible/scripture, and those it was addressed to are said to be humankind - but in particular, believers in that God.

An omnipotent God could communicate His word so that it would not be misinterpreted or misunderstood (particularly as He is said to be the creator of humanity and so would know what is required to achieve that).

Not being a believer, I'm not really in a position to be more specific; I'm just taking claims they've made at face value.

The quote you started with addresses the text, the supposed author and all people, not what somebody said about those things. So the question would be for what reason do you think it is a valid idea, in relation to the things it addresses. To demonstrate that you’d need to define a number of things, for example what would define a universal understanding of some writing or other that purports to address the range of topics included in the bible? What would that look like, in practice? For people, both those who read it and those who didn’t, to think the same thing about it? Or you could take an example of something people disagree on, look at why they disagree on it and comment on it, explaining what makes some part of that a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Those would be questions that address the things the quote relates to.

 

[Freodin]

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.

Something that Flat Earthers are commonly very bad at: understanding scale.

 

[Strathos]

Something that Flat Earthers are commonly very bad at: understanding scale.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Lost4words]

Something that Flat Earthers are commonly very bad at: understanding scale.

And reality

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The quote you started with addresses the text, the supposed author and all people, not what somebody said about those things. So the question would be for what reason do you think it is a valid idea, in relation to the things it addresses. To demonstrate that you’d need to define a number of things, for example what would define a universal understanding of some writing or other that purports to address the range of topics included in the bible? What would that look like, in practice? For people, both those who read it and those who didn’t, to think the same thing about it? Or you could take an example of something people disagree on, look at why they disagree on it and comment on it, explaining what makes some part of that a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Those would be questions that address the things the quote relates to.

As I said, how you want to interpret it is entirely up to you.

 

[Tom 1]

As I said, how you want to interpret it is entirely up to you.

Good point. Here is how I interpret it:

To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke -

Two possibilities exist - there are 2 possibilities

Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood - one possibility

He did not - the other

Both are equally damning - the conclusion.

As you posted this, my assumption is that you are willing to discuss it.

My interpretation of what you are saying is - people say the bible is misinterpreted and misunderstood, ergo, if this is true, God either intended this or he didn’t.

Some thought experiments don’t refer to anything real - they are thought experiments. Presumably whoever asked ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’ wasn’t asking for some kind of physical demonstration. If he or she was, then, well, problem solved, if not, there’s some stuff there to think about.

What you are saying however relates to things that something can be found out about, not to abstract ideas. Some of these are: what is meant by misinterpretation and misunderstanding? In relation to what? Determined by who and how? Is the existence of some set of complex ideas, stories, social theories and so on that can be universally understood by everyone on the planet in exactly the same way an actual possibility? Is it at least theoretically possible, and if so, how? Does the bible in some way require that kind of universal understanding? In what precise ways would the lack of such universal understanding, were it to be required, relate to the intention of its supposed author, if the bible had a single author?

These questions all relate to the quote, if you think the author was referring to some other set of things other than the bible and people and god/the idea of god perhaps you could explain your perspective. As you began this thought experiment, perhaps you could explain some of your answers to the questions it raises?

 

[JacksBratt]

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

CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Here is a very interesting compilation of the simple fact that "we see too far"..

 

[Strathos]

CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..

Way to totally miss the point of the conversation. Morse was just saying that the reason they don't do manned moon missions nowadays is because it would be too easy to tell that the CGI was fake. I pointed out that if that was the case, why do they still do unmanned missions?

 

[JacksBratt]

Way to totally miss the point of the conversation. Morse was just saying that the reason they don't do manned moon missions nowadays is because it would be too easy to tell that the CGI was fake. I pointed out that if that was the case, why do they still do unmanned missions?

They don't do any missions..... That is my point.

 

[Strathos]

They don't do any missions..... That is my point.

And once again you fail to understand the line of argument.

Morse: They don't go to the moon anymore because they never went there in the first place!

Me: If they faked it back then, why not continue to fake it now?

Morse: Because it would be too easy to tell that it's fake!

Me: Then why do they still do unmanned missions, with so much footage that is supposedly so easy to prove is fake?

He had no answer for that, and you don't even comprehend the question being asked.

 

[JacksBratt]

And once again you fail to understand the line of argument.

Morse: They don't go to the moon anymore because they never went there in the first place!

Me: If they faked it back then, why not continue to fake it now?

Morse: Because it would be too easy to tell that it's fake!

Me: Then why do they still do unmanned missions, with so much footage that is supposedly so easy to prove is fake?

He had no answer for that, and you don't even comprehend the question being asked.

IC... thank you for clearing that up. I disagree that they don't go because the CGI would look fake. I think that CGI is so good now that people still believe that Elon put a car in space..

However, others asked the intelligent questions that made it fully apparrent that it was fake... Tires not exploding in a vacuum, dash board and other plastics not melting or cracking in the extreme temperature fluctuations... Elon even said that it was not designed for the harsh environment of space. It was not a special edition just a car off the line... Then.. said.. "it has to be real... it looks so fake.. our CGI is much better than that"

If they start saying that they are going to the moon again... people are going to start asking for proof that they cannot present.

Personally.. with the soft disclosure of UFO's. Well, what the atheistic Darwinian evolutionists are claiming UFO's to be... and all the other things that are going on.... I believe that the world population is in for some very disturbing "scientific" disclosures...of the Satanic motivated and deceptive kind....

As a result.. the so called "mars mission" and more moon shots.. will be way down the list of things the public are asking questions about.

 

[lasthero]

CGI....That is the simplest part of their hoax..

I'd love to know how CGI can produce pictures of the Earth from satellites that actually match up with live events happening on the ground. Yet to see any explanation for that.

 

[Strathos]

IC... thank you for clearing that up. I disagree that they don't go because the CGI would look fake. I think that CGI is so good now that people still believe that Elon put a car in space..

However, others asked the intelligent questions that made it fully apparrent that it was fake... Tires not exploding in a vacuum, dash board and other plastics not melting or cracking in the extreme temperature fluctuations... Elon even said that it was not designed for the harsh environment of space. It was not a special edition just a car off the line... Then.. said.. "it has to be real... it looks so fake.. our CGI is much better than that"

If they start saying that they are going to the moon again... people are going to start asking for proof that they cannot present.

Personally.. with the soft disclosure of UFO's. Well, what the atheistic Darwinian evolutionists are claiming UFO's to be... and all the other things that are going on.... I believe that the world population is in for some very disturbing "scientific" disclosures...of the Satanic motivated and deceptive kind....

As a result.. the so called "mars mission" and more moon shots.. will be way down the list of things the public are asking questions about.

The difference in external pressure from sea level and low earth orbit compared to the interior tire pressure is only a fraction. Please do some research and stop embarrassing us.

 

[jayem]

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.

I have Nikon 10 X 42s. Nice peepers. But kinda big and heavy. Maybe they make me lean forward. Which I guess cancels out the mountain leaning away from me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good point. Here is how I interpret it:

To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke -

Two possibilities exist - there are 2 possibilities

Either He meant for scripture to be misinterpreted and misunderstood - one possibility

He did not - the other

Both are equally damning - the conclusion.

As you posted this, my assumption is that you are willing to discuss it.

My interpretation of what you are saying is - people say the bible is misinterpreted and misunderstood, ergo, if this is true, God either intended this or he didn’t.

Some thought experiments don’t refer to anything real - they are thought experiments. Presumably whoever asked ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’ wasn’t asking for some kind of physical demonstration. If he or she was, then, well, problem solved, if not, there’s some stuff there to think about.

What you are saying however relates to things that something can be found out about, not to abstract ideas. Some of these are: what is meant by misinterpretation and misunderstanding? In relation to what? Determined by who and how? Is the existence of some set of complex ideas, stories, social theories and so on that can be universally understood by everyone on the planet in exactly the same way an actual possibility? Is it at least theoretically possible, and if so, how? Does the bible in some way require that kind of universal understanding? In what precise ways would the lack of such universal understanding, were it to be required, relate to the intention of its supposed author, if the bible had a single author?

These questions all relate to the quote, if you think the author was referring to some other set of things other than the bible and people and god/the idea of god perhaps you could explain your perspective. As you began this thought experiment, perhaps you could explain some of your answers to the questions it raises?

The original quote by Arther C Clarke was about the existence of terrestrial life, so 'paraphrase' isn't really the correct word - I couldn't think of a word that meant saying something different using the same stylistic form. I knew a few people would pick up on the reference, but it doesn't really matter.

As for answering the questions raised, I've already told you, raising and answering questions about it is an exercise for believers who feel so inclined.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Of course, that depends on whether God is bound by logic. Is that the case, or are the laws of logic something that God created? If God created logic, then he should no more be bound by logic than he'd be bound by gravity.

In fact, I'd say that anything that is actually a genuine miracle would have to violate the laws of logic, even if only in the slightest way - after all, if they didn't, then there'd have to be a perfectly logical explanation for any alleged miracle, and if that's the case, why call them a miracle at all? And so, God should not actually be bound by logic.

So, if we conclude that God is not bound by logic, then God should be able to show us a shape that we see as perfectly round, and yet at the same time we would see that it perfectly fits the definition of a square. Sure, it may not make sense to us how this could be possible, but that's because we are bound by logic. God, without such a limitation, could accomplish it, even if it seems impossible to us.

And so we have a problem. I've often asked why God doesn't make me, an atheist, a believer. And I'm often told that he can't, because that would violate my free will. And God wants me to CHOOSE to believe, not be forced. And, I'm told, that it is logically impossible for someone to be forced to do something and at the same time be doing that thing of their own free will.

Yet, if God is not bound by logic, he should be able to.

So why hasn't he?