The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[DFT_Dave]

You are propagating lies. You are defending the claim. THAT is wicked. The families of the seven astronauts have suffered greatly. For anyone to claim that their loved ones are still alive is horrible. If you doubt this then go talk to one of the family members and tell them,

"Hey, don't you know NASA lied and the seven astronauts are still alive!"

Then, see how they respond. Besides being wicked the idea is STUPID. Did NASA fake the explosion? What is the point of keeping the seven astronauts alive? Wouldn't NASA want them dead or at least hidden from everyone to keep the lie? Why wouldn't the seven astronauts contact their families?

Why would you even believe this ridiculous story, Dave? You can't be this stupid. I've been on your website and it's solid website.I prefer to think you are simply trolling us. If this is true, then well done, sir. You got us good.

There's a big difference between propagating a claim and investigating a claim.

There are still unanswered questions for me on cosmology.

I don't see this debate as the end of life or faith as some of you see it.

There are arguments that favor flat earth that keeps me pursuing it.

To answer your question about the Challenger accident I would imagine the following. The seven astronauts were never in the shuttle spacecraft to begin with. The explosion was an unexpected event that required funerals etc. I would expect all family members cooperating in order to keep the secret. I'm sure NASA spares no expense in helping out. There are other articles and videos on these astronauts that I'm looking at and will comment more on later.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's a big difference between propagating a claim and investigating a claim.

There are still unanswered questions for me on cosmology.

I don't see this debate as the end of life or faith as some of you see it.

There are arguments that favor flat earth that keeps me pursuing it.

To answer your question about the Challenger accident I would imagine the following. The seven astronauts were never in the shuttle spacecraft to begin with. The explosion was an unexpected event that required funerals etc. I would expect all family members cooperating in order to keep the secret. I'm sure NASA spares no expense in helping out. There are other articles and videos on these astronauts that I'm looking at and will comment more on later.

--Dave

Which just brings the question back to "why would they lie to their families?"

Don't respond to that, I'm not interested in discussing that ridiculous conspiracy.

I'm more interested in your progress in the topic from earlier.

Dave, have you made any progress?

Start here.

I recommend you check out a couple different sites then, if you're interested.

http://kgov.com/hpt
http://kgov.com/360
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Or, if you prefer watching videos...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-XAIbPh34SXNs69lOx-PpIKtmj4lhm4G

Gah, there are so many links I don't know where to start with linking.

Though, I recommend you start with the first two kgov links above.

The third link is a book by Dr. Walter Brown, which details his Hydroplate Theory.

The first YT playlist above is Bryan Nickel's video playlist which describes in detail, using visuals, the HPT.
The second playlist is Bob Enyart's playlist on the Global Flood and the Hydroplate Theory.

I strongly recommend you watch all of them, if possible.

Let me know where you're at.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You can repeat yourself all you like and you can lie all you like (to yourself mostly) about the veracity of your so called evidence but it doesn't change reality and it doesn't change the fact that I have personally proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

I thought that I might be able to engage you again on this without getting the angry frustrated hollow feeling in my gut but I was wrong. You are the single most dishonest Christian I have ever encountered. That includes the likes of Nang and Beloved57 (Wow!). I am literally ashamed of you. Ashamed and embarrassed because I know that you've repeated this utter stupidity in the name of Christianity.

The only thing I'm at all interested in discussing with you at this point is why you refuse to allow sound reason to persuade your mind.

Even that grants you ground that I'm literally not sure you deserve because it presumes that you aren't simply stupid. I still am unable to bring myself to believe that your brain is physically impaired or that you were born with some condition or some sort of mental deficiency that would explain why you stubbornly refuse to accept the verdict of perfectly sound and childishly simple reasoning that undeniably proves beyond all doubt whatsoever that the Earth is not flat.

What is your motive? Why are you resigned to simply repeating "arguments" that have already been refuted as if no one has said a word about them? What could possibly be your motive? Why not simply accept that the world is round like EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is?

Clete

You have my reasons why I have doubts about the heliocentric model and why I believe flat earth has valid arguments.

I have not tied my faith in the Bible, the existence and nature of God, or the deity of Christ to any particular cosmology. Anyone in my mind could be flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric and still be a Christian.

It seems to me you have your whole Christian faith, and all rational thought, resting on your cosmology.

I can go either way. I'm not losing sleep or going to hell because I'm questioning a heliocentric cosmology that for most of my life I have always believed, or assumed, to be true.

I'm enjoying this debate. Although I'm taking the side of flat earth I'm looking at the arguments for all the other cosmologies as well. I think debate is the best way to learn about any subject.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You have my reasons why I have doubts about the heliocentric model and why I believe flat earth has valid arguments.

I have not tied my faith in the Bible, the existence and nature of God, or the deity of Christ to any particular cosmology. Anyone in my mind could be flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric and still be a Christian.

It seems to me you have your whole Christian faith, and all rational thought, resting on your cosmology.

I can go either way. I'm not losing sleep or going to hell because I'm questioning a heliocentric cosmology that for most of my life I have always believed, or assumed, to be true.

I'm enjoying this debate. Although I'm taking the side of flat earth I'm looking at the arguments for all the other cosmologies as well. I think debate is the best way to learn about any subject.

--Dave

I'm more interested in your progress in the topic from earlier.

Dave, have you made any progress?





Let me know where you're at.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yeah, that's exactly why this bothers me so much!

Don't let this thread deter you. Everything on his website is worthwhile so long as he hasn't added a bunch of FET stuff.

Don't worry, I haven't added FE to my website.

But I think it's time for me to reveal more of my motivation.

One of my most important contributions to "open theism" is that time is not a thing in itself, time is an aspect of God's intrinsic nature--God is free. God moves himself. He can do more than one thing at a time but he does not do everything, he is capable of doing, all at once, for all eternity.

Einstein has been credited for saying "time keeps everything from happening all at once".

I would add to that, space keeps everything from happening all in the same place.

Once I had spent a lot of time on God and time I turned my attention to God and space.

In terms of physics, Einstein also said "If matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time." Space is also nothing in itself, pure space is absolute nothingness.

So I asked myself what is space to God? If time exists for God does space also exist for him?

I argued sometime back, if you remember, that God is something and not nothing and that if he were something, a being as opposed to not a being, then he would have to occupy a place in space. Without a distinction between God and space, we end up with pantheism, God everywhere and in everything.

Jesus said, "I go to the Father". That literally means a location somewhere as opposed to everywhere and opposed to no-where.

Obviously, questioning God's omnipresence is crazier than questioning his timelessness. But if I were going have God located somewhere, and not nowhere and not everywhere, then where?

So my study of cosmology became more important. So I thought to myself, where in the heliocentric universe could God be found? Einstein's space/time block universe is actually a place for his pantheistic understanding of God so I rejected that. As I was looking at videos of the universe I kept seeing flat earth videos popping up on you-tube. I knew that flat earth was our most ancient cosmology. I didn't believe in it, but I thought why not take a look and see why there are people who still believe in it today.

After I saw a few FE presentations it hit me, if FE is the Biblical cosmology then God's location, in heavenly places, above the flat earth, made perfect sense.

Think of having a theology with God having both time and location within a flat earth cosmology. I would argue that that would be the only coherent and literal interpretation of the Bible.

So I started this tread here so I could put FE to the test. So now you know I have a deeper motive that drives my interest in flat earth.

But please keep in mind, my systematic theology is not my salvation. I just have always wondered just how literal we can take the Bible to be. I would like to give it every chance to be literally true, and so would you.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Which just brings the question back to "why would they lie to their families?"

Don't respond to that, I'm not interested in discussing that ridiculous conspiracy.

I'm more interested in your progress in the topic from earlier.

Dave, have you made any progress?

Let me know where you're at.

I think their families know the truth.

As far as the floods effect on cosmology I have not had time as yet to look at all the material you gave me. I have been working the past four days but now I'll have the next three days off to view it.

--Dave

 

[Yorzhik]

You can repeat yourself all you like and you can lie all you like (to yourself mostly) about the veracity of your so called evidence but it doesn't change reality and it doesn't change the fact that I have personally proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

I thought that I might be able to engage you again on this without getting the angry frustrated hollow feeling in my gut but I was wrong. You are the single most dishonest Christian I have ever encountered. That includes the likes of Nang and Beloved57 (Wow!). I am literally ashamed of you. Ashamed and embarrassed because I know that you've repeated this utter stupidity in the name of Christianity.

The only thing I'm at all interested in discussing with you at this point is why you refuse to allow sound reason to persuade your mind.

Even that grants you ground that I'm literally not sure you deserve because it presumes that you aren't simply stupid. I still am unable to bring myself to believe that your brain is physically impaired or that you were born with some condition or some sort of mental deficiency that would explain why you stubbornly refuse to accept the verdict of perfectly sound and childishly simple reasoning that undeniably proves beyond all doubt whatsoever that the Earth is not flat.

What is your motive? Why are you resigned to simply repeating "arguments" that have already been refuted as if no one has said a word about them? What could possibly be your motive? Why not simply accept that the world is round like EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is?

Clete

I had always wondered why God would be so worried about us swearing - taking the name of the Lord in vain. The commandments before that one, and the ones about our relationship with men afterward, seemed so much more real and important.

Then, of all places, I hear Dennis Prager say that passage is more accurately thought of "do not carry the Lord's name in vain". This makes so much more sense! Now the gravity of disobeying this commandment fits with the others, and is also about how man relates to God, the context of this section of Ex 20. The parts afterward carry a context as man relates to man - where the crudeness or vulgarity of swearing would actually matter - yet the command to not be crude or vulgar doesn't rise to the importance of the other commandments to be mentioned.

Yet this is what Dave is doing. He is carrying the name of the Lord in vain. God made the earth and the universe good. He made it so we could find out about it for God's glory. Dave is tearing down the handy-work of God so as to make it absurd. If we followed Dave's example of seeking the truth about the earth, we'd end up as babbling fools.

I tried to discuss this with Dave calmly, respectfully, and without name calling. But he just ignored my polite nature. It shows he isn't interested in discussing the topic. He is more interested in arguing so he can fall back on his hurt feelings to justify continuing down this path. It really does seem like something happened to his thinking.

 

[Clete]

You have my reasons why I have doubts about the heliocentric model and why I believe flat earth has valid arguments.

I have not tied my faith in the Bible, the existence and nature of God, or the deity of Christ to any particular cosmology. Anyone in my mind could be flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric and still be a Christian.

It seems to me you have your whole Christian faith, and all rational thought, resting on your cosmology.

I can go either way. I'm not losing sleep or going to hell because I'm questioning a heliocentric cosmology that for most of my life I have always believed, or assumed, to be true.

I'm enjoying this debate. Although I'm taking the side of flat earth I'm looking at the arguments for all the other cosmologies as well. I think debate is the best way to learn about any subject.

--Dave

Except that you aren't debating and you aren't even investigating.

When someone refutes an argument you've made, simply repeating the argument as though nothing was said to refute it doesn't count as debate. That's called stubbornness (or worse).

Besides, this thread has been going on for literally years. It's not like we are just getting started and have a lot of ground left to cover here. I have, in fact, proven that the Earth cannot be flat. I have proven it David and yet you REFUSE to allow sound reason to persuade you. WHY?

As for this not being an issue that would disqualify someone from being a Christian, of course I agree. Stubbornly clinging to stupid arguments in face of undeniably compelling proof that the Earth isn't flat doesn't mean you're no longer a believer but it certain can prevent others from becoming believers. I can't really tell any more whether you're able to see how ridiculous you look when you make hideously flimsy arguments that amount to "The Earth can't be round because it looks and feels flat." but I can assure you that virtually everyone who might ever hear you suggest that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat laughs at you at best and at worst they believe you and use that as proof that the bible is a bunch of made up fairy tales for children. You are doing great damage to your credibility even in the eyes of your allies, nevermind those strangers you might mention this insanity to on the street. You want to act as if you're free to believe this nonsense and remain saved and while that much may be true, the fact remains that stupidity has consequences, very serious consequences.

Now, since you addressed virtually everything in my post except the one thing I said that I was interested in discussing with you, I'll ask it again....

Why do you not allow sound reason to persuade your mind?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Don't worry, I haven't added FE to my website.

But I think it's time for me to reveal more of my motivation.

One of my most important contributions to "open theism" is that time is not a thing in itself, time is an aspect of God's intrinsic nature--God is free. God moves himself. He can do more than one thing at a time but he does not do everything, he is capable of doing, all at once, for all eternity.

Einstein has been credited for saying "time keeps everything from happening all at once".

I would add to that, space keeps everything from happening all in the same place.

Once I had spent a lot of time on God and time I turned my attention to God and space.

In terms of physics, Einstein also said "If matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time." Space is also nothing in itself, pure space is absolute nothingness.

So I asked myself what is space to God? If time exists for God does space also exist for him?

I argued sometime back, if you remember, that God is something and not nothing and that if he were something, a being as opposed to not a being, then he would have to occupy a place in space. Without a distinction between God and space, we end up with pantheism, God everywhere and in everything.

Jesus said, "I go to the Father". That literally means a location somewhere as opposed to everywhere and opposed to no-where.

Obviously, questioning God's omnipresence is crazier than questioning his timelessness. But if I were going have God located somewhere, and not nowhere and not everywhere, then where?

So my study of cosmology became more important. So I thought to myself, where in the heliocentric universe could God be found? Einstein's space/time block universe is actually a place for his pantheistic understanding of God so I rejected that. As I was looking at videos of the universe I kept seeing flat earth videos popping up on you-tube. I knew that flat earth was our most ancient cosmology. I didn't believe in it, but I thought why not take a look and see why there are people who still believe in it today.

After I saw a few FE presentations it hit me, if FE is the Biblical cosmology then God's location, in heavenly places, above the flat earth, made perfect sense.

Think of having a theology with God having both time and location within a flat earth cosmology. I would argue that that would be the only coherent and literal interpretation of the Bible.

So I started this tread here so I could put FE to the test. So now you know I have a deeper motive that drives my interest in flat earth.

But please keep in mind, my systematic theology is not my salvation. I just have always wondered just how literal we can take the Bible to be. I would like to give it every chance to be literally true, and so would you.

--Dave

This is subtly self-contradictory, it seems to me. You seem to want both space and time to be both real and not real. Space is no more an ontological thing than time is. Both space and time are ideas, not things that God created nor are they things that have always existed along with God. They are ideas and nothing more than that. Just as time is a convention of language used to convey information about the sequence and duration (same thing) of events relative to other events, so space is a convention of language used to convey information about the location of objects (or events) relative to other objects.

Saying that God exists in time and space is true, not in the sense that time and space are real substances that one can be submerged in or contained within but rather in the sense that God experiences sequence and duration and is located in one place while not necessarily in another. I say, "not necessarily" because the pagan Greek idea of Omnipresence is an over statement of God's size and/or location. It, as you suggest, borders on pantheism and is not biblical. God is everywhere that He wants to be, whenever He wants to be there and nowhere else.

As for being "above the Earth" the flat earth model doesn't make this any easier except perhaps from a child's perspective and even if it did, it complicates so many other things that you've traded one mystery for a thousand others. The sky and everything in it is "above" the Earth but would only be so part of the time if the Earth were flat. Part of the time the Sun would be below the Earth or beside it. Only when the Earth is a sphere (as it is in reality) can the Sun, Moon, stars and anything else that is not on the surface be considered "above" the Earth at all times. Why? Because to those of us living on the Earth, up is always in the direction opposite of gravity's pull. Even if you don't have any concept of gravity and don't call it that, still up or above is in the direction opposite of the way things fall to the ground.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Don't worry, I haven't added FE to my website.

But I think it's time for me to reveal more of my motivation.

One of my most important contributions to "open theism" is that time is not a thing in itself, time is an aspect of God's intrinsic nature--God is free. God moves himself. He can do more than one thing at a time but he does not do everything, he is capable of doing, all at once, for all eternity.

Einstein has been credited for saying "time keeps everything from happening all at once".

I would add to that, space keeps everything from happening all in the same place.

Once I had spent a lot of time on God and time I turned my attention to God and space.

In terms of physics, Einstein also said "If matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time." Space is also nothing in itself, pure space is absolute nothingness.

So I asked myself what is space to God? If time exists for God does space also exist for him?

I argued sometime back, if you remember, that God is something and not nothing and that if he were something, a being as opposed to not a being, then he would have to occupy a place in space. Without a distinction between God and space, we end up with pantheism, God everywhere and in everything.

Jesus said, "I go to the Father". That literally means a location somewhere as opposed to everywhere and opposed to no-where.

Obviously, questioning God's omnipresence is crazier than questioning his timelessness. But if I were going have God located somewhere, and not nowhere and not everywhere, then where?

So my study of cosmology became more important. So I thought to myself, where in the heliocentric universe could God be found? Einstein's space/time block universe is actually a place for his pantheistic understanding of God so I rejected that. As I was looking at videos of the universe I kept seeing flat earth videos popping up on you-tube. I knew that flat earth was our most ancient cosmology. I didn't believe in it, but I thought why not take a look and see why there are people who still believe in it today.

After I saw a few FE presentations it hit me, if FE is the Biblical cosmology then God's location, in heavenly places, above the flat earth, made perfect sense.

Think of having a theology with God having both time and location within a flat earth cosmology. I would argue that that would be the only coherent and literal interpretation of the Bible.

So I started this tread here so I could put FE to the test. So now you know I have a deeper motive that drives my interest in flat earth.

But please keep in mind, my systematic theology is not my salvation. I just have always wondered just how literal we can take the Bible to be. I would like to give it every chance to be literally true, and so would you.

--Dave

Wow... Dave.... It's hard for me to believe that this is what drove you to madness.

 

[chair]

The Israeli Lunar Lander 'Beresheet', privately funded, will be landing on the moon in a few days. It's taken some photos on the way. Check some of these links:

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-spacecraft-Beresheet-takes-first-selfie-in-space-582512
https://www.space.com/israeli-lander-moon-far-side-photos.html
https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-maneuver-for-lunar-arrival.html

I really hope she lands OK!

if anybody sees a flat earth (or a flat moon) in these photos, let me know.

Chair

 

[Clete]

The Israeli Lunar Lander 'Beresheet', privately funded, will be landing on the moon in a few days. It's taken some photos on the way. Check some of these links:

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-spacecraft-Beresheet-takes-first-selfie-in-space-582512
https://www.space.com/israeli-lander-moon-far-side-photos.html
https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-maneuver-for-lunar-arrival.html

I really hope she lands OK!

if anybody sees a flat earth (or a flat moon) in these photos, let me know.

Chair

I love that shot of the far side of the Moon!

The Moon has got to be my favorite object in the sky. I've taken several photos of it myself. It's so obviously solid and round and real that it's literally histerical to hear anyone suggest otherwhise the way some flat earthers do.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is subtly self-contradictory, it seems to me. You seem to want both space and time to be both real and not real. Space is no more an ontological thing than time is. Both space and time are ideas, not things that God created nor are they things that have always existed along with God. They are ideas and nothing more than that. Just as time is a convention of language used to convey information about the sequence and duration (same thing) of events relative to other events, so space is a convention of language used to convey information about the location of objects (or events) relative to other objects.

Saying that God exists in time and space is true, not in the sense that time and space are real substances that one can be submerged in or contained within but rather in the sense that God experiences sequence and duration and is located in one place while not necessarily in another. I say, "not necessarily" because the pagan Greek idea of Omnipresence is an over statement of God's size and/or location. It, as you suggest, borders on pantheism and is not biblical. God is everywhere that He wants to be, whenever He wants to be there and nowhere else.

As for being "above the Earth" the flat earth model doesn't make this any easier except perhaps from a child's perspective and even if it did, it complicates so many other things that you've traded one mystery for a thousand others. The sky and everything in it is "above" the Earth but would only be so part of the time if the Earth were flat. Part of the time the Sun would be below the Earth or beside it. Only when the Earth is a sphere (as it is in reality) can the Sun, Moon, stars and anything else that is not on the surface be considered "above" the Earth at all times. Why? Because to those of us living on the Earth, up is always in the direction opposite of gravity's pull. Even if you don't have any concept of gravity and don't call it that, still up or above is in the direction opposite of the way things fall to the ground.

Clete

As to your first paragraph.

It's not that I don't want space and time to be real and not real. What I don't want is space and time to be the same thing as Einstein made it.

Time keeps everything from happening all at once for us and God. It's irrational to say God does everything all at once and then say it's effects are moment by moment.

Space keeps everything from existing all in the exact same place. It's irrational to say God exists everywhere and then say he lives in "heavenly places". God and space are the same thing if God is everywhere.

Space and time are as real to God as they are to us. God as non-material "spirit" can have location just as it can have time. I would not call time and space mere conventions of language.

As to your second paragraph.

I like it.

Your last paragraph

What you are blind to, and what I think is the "Achilles' heel" of globe earth, is the effect of gravity. If Gravity pulls every atom, molecule, particle "downward" then why on earth would everything not be immovably stuck to the surface of the earth?

When I ask a question like this I only get in response that I'm an idiot who knows nothing about physics. I idea of gravity is a contradiction to reality. If everything is pulled downward on earth then nothing would move on top of and above it in all directions.

Without gravity the whole Copernican system falls apart regardless if you think it best explains how we see the heavenly bodies move above us.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wow... Dave.... It's hard for me to believe that this is what drove you to madness.

Empirical evidence and logic drive us to the truth. Observation and experience from earth tell us the heavenly bodies move over a motionless flat earth.

This also is consistent with the Bible taken literally.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Israeli Lunar Lander 'Beresheet', privately funded, will be landing on the moon in a few days. It's taken some photos on the way. Check some of these links:

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israeli-spacecraft-Beresheet-takes-first-selfie-in-space-582512
https://www.space.com/israeli-lander-moon-far-side-photos.html
https://www.space.com/israel-moon-lander-maneuver-for-lunar-arrival.html

I really hope she lands OK!

if anybody sees a flat earth (or a flat moon) in these photos, let me know.

Chair

Photo taken from a Nikopn P900. You don't need a moon lander to get these pics of the moon.

View attachment 26770

This pic is computer generated.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Empirical evidence and logic drive us to the truth. Observation and experience from earth tell us the heavenly bodies move over a motionless flat earth.

Dave, that is nonsense and has been proven false to you in so many ways.

This also is consistent with the Bible taken literally.

--Dave

We can see by this entire thread that you have been disingenuous from the start.

 

[chair]

Photo taken from a Nikopn P900. You don't need a moon lander to get these pics of the moon.

View attachment 26770

This pic is computer generated.

--Dave

Dave, why would a privately funded space enterprise in a different country generate these "false" images?

You are intellectually dishonest and an embarrassment to other Christians. In fact, even I, a Jew, finds you embarrassing, because your ridiculous notions make the Hebrew Bible look totally stupid.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, that is nonsense and has been proven false to you in so many ways.

We can see by this entire thread that you have been disingenuous from the start.

I didn't invent the arguments for flat earth. I may have stated them differently at times but I had to study flat earth to understand it.

Spinning globe's so called proofs have been challenged so we have this debate.

I have maintained that no one need be accused of being insane or an idiot for seeing good arguments from both sides.

It would have been disingenuous of me to pretend I have the ultimate and final cosmological answers, as I think it would be for anyone else from any cosmology.

That we "from earth" in all of our normal everyday experiences see a flat motionless earth is absolutely true. That we all see the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky above us in the same way we see clouds, birds, and planes is also absolutely true.

Video from high altitude balloons confirm what we see from the ground.

That we live on a spinning globe is something that the majority of us cannot confirm.

It hasn't been proven to me that flat earth has been proven to be false. But at the same time, there are questions that flat earth has not answered as yet, for me. I have acknowledged this many times. Until some matters have been settled for me from both views I remain open to both.

This website is for debate not just lectures from one side of an argument regardless if one side thinks it has the absolute truth.

 

[Right Divider]

I didn't invent the arguments for flat earth.

Nobody claimed that you did.

I may have stated them differently at times but I had to study flat earth to understand it.

Your "study" has led you to wrong conclusions. That's a bad study.

Spinning globe's so called proofs have been challenged so we have this debate.

You call it a debate. In this you are again disingenuous. We have presented clear and irrefutable evidence that you have ignored time and time again.

I have maintained that no one need be accused of being insane or an idiot for seeing good arguments from both sides.

You idea of what constitutes a "good argument" is not good.

It would have been disingenuous of me to pretend I have the ultimate and final cosmological answers, as I think it would be for anyone else from any cosmology.

That we "from earth" in all of our normal everyday experiences see a flat motionless earth is absolutely true.

No it is not and it will not become true just because you keep repeating it.

That we all see the sun, moon, and stars moving through the sky above us in the same way we see clouds, birds, and planes is also absolutely true.

Once AGAIN, the entire universe is viewed from the perspective of the observer. The inconsistent view of stars in the southern hemisphere in the FE "model" is a singular proof enough to discredit the idea. But you persist as if...

Video from high altitude balloons confirm what we see from the ground.

Your pet "proofs" are no proof at all.

That we live on a spinning globe is something that the majority of us cannot confirm.

More falsehoods.

It hasn't been proven to me that flat earth has been proven to be false. But at the same time, there are questions that flat earth has not answered as yet, for me. I have acknowledged this many times. Until some matters have been settled for me from both views I remain open to both.

The stars viewed from the southern hemisphere prove you wrong. I guess that you never even viewed the video that was posted earlier.

This website is for debate not just lectures from one side of an argument regardless if one side thinks it has the absolute truth.

Blah, blah blah..

You've been given conclusive proof and not "just lectures".

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, why would a privately funded space enterprise in a different country generate these "false" images?

You are intellectually dishonest and an embarrassment to other Christians. In fact, even I, a Jew, finds you embarrassing, because your ridiculous notions make the Hebrew Bible look totally stupid.

The moon images are not "false" they just don't need a ship in order to be seen the same way.

The pic of earth is no different than those computer generated by NASA and are just as fake.

Why would a "privately funded" group lie? I suppose for the same reason a "government funded" one would.

--Dave