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

[Aimiel]

Doesn't work if the stars are light-years to billions of light-years away. And we know that space is big enough for that to be true.

The furthest stars would be moving at millions of times the speed of light if that were so to be able to get same amount of movement across the sky, and that's just not possible.

I believe that we don't know for sure, one way or the other.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I believe that we don't know for sure, one way or the other.

We do know, because of the Pythagorean theorem.

As [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] said earlier, if you want to prove that the objects in the night sky are not as far away as are claimed to be, then you need to refute/disprove large portions of the foundations of mathematics.

But you won't, because you can't, because they're valid, and your position is not.

 

[Aimiel]

Observations in the sky lead to theories, none of which are etched in stone, they're merely observations that men have developed theories to explain. I still believe it's a fixed earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Observations in the sky lead to theories, none of which are etched in stone, they're merely observations that men have developed theories to explain. I still believe it's a fixed earth.

Do you even know what the Pythagorean theorem is?

It has nothing to do with the sky.

Mathematics, for the most part, IS etched in stone. We use math to calculate how far away objects here on earth, and we do the exact same thing for things in space.

The burden of proof is on YOU to show that the numbers that were calculated for the distances to the stars are wrong.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes, I know. I can read, thank you.

What I said, stands. If you think that it is even remotely possible that the Earth might actually be at the center of our solar system and you have spent more than a day or two looking into it and still consider it possible then you are stupid as a box of rocks.

Of course you don't.

You don't care what I think of you but you think I'm going to care what an idiot thinks of me? Interesting.

:rotfl: You really are an idiot! :rotfl:

It is not absurd. Anyone with a properly thinking mind can know it intuitively, nevermind with even just a few hours of "extensive authentic research". Years of anything resembling such research is reserved for the pathologically stupid.

No I don't and no it isn't. The reason this society is going to Hell in a hand basket is because Christians believe that it incumbent upon them to suffer fools as though they're normal people.

Well I don't! Fools who aren't exposed as such will continue in their foolishness and encourage others to join them. The fact of the matter is that you ought to be ashamed of yourself and embarrassed of your willingness to entertain any asinine supposition that you come across on YouTube so long as someone quotes a word from the Hebrew in Genesis 3.

:chuckle: That Gen. 3 comments really does make me laugh!

As I said, fools who aren't exposed as such will continue in their foolishness and encourage others to do the same and in so doing will sully the reptuation of the bible, the church and even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The "if you get time" phrase is what makes this comment a lie. You have no intention of reading it. How would you say liars effect "the effectiveness of evangelism"?

Read the thread.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

No, idiot! Wrong again.

I hate intellectually dishonest people who spread stupidity in the name of Christianity and who PRETEND to be "investigating" when what they really are doing is feeding their ego by joining the special underground group who claims to have the real truth and believe that nearly everyone around them is lying about almost everything.

It's nothing but idiotic, conspiratorial stupidity not to mention dishonest.

Yeah, go ahead and try to convince me, Mr. Study Geocentrism for Years, that it's my personality that keeps you from being convince by the simplest of sound reason.

Then read the argument(s) and be convinced.

I'd just about bet my house than neither will happen.

Within Christian circles, perhaps not but these idiot flat-earthers are out there presenting this stupidity as being biblical!

People do still go to Hell forever if they die without Christ. What do you say we not give them any extra excuses that aren't necessary, shall we? Flat Earthers are an enemy within our own gates and they ought to be confronted and even booted from our presence if they refuse to repent.

You can call me a heretic all you want. I happen to know for a fact that you saying that I'm a heretic doesn't make it so and I also know that you couldn't refute one syllable of my doctrine. Not one single syllable of it, nor would you be interested in attempting to do so, if you even know what it is.

Charitable? Really?

I asked him at least five different times to answer one question and he UTTERLY and intentionally ignored it even after I asked him why he thinks its okay for him to do so. Is that your definition of charitable?

He has NEVER, not one single time, offered anything resembling a rational refutation of any of the hundreds of different arguments I've made against his idiotic parroting of the latest YouTube video that YouTube's algorithm spit in his direction. What he has done is completely ignore every single argument presented to him and waited long enough for most people to forget what the argument was and then repeat that same stupidity all over again as though nothing was ever said. Is this what you call charitable?

Dave's mind has been poisoned and twisted, perhaps beyond all hope this side of heaven and I for one am not willing to sit by and let someone who, up until this thread, I respected more than perhaps any other regular contributor to TOL. He has destroyed himself in the eyes of one of his greatest allies. Imagine what his lunacy would do to people who don't know anything about him except that he's a Christian?

So says the moron who thinks the Earth might be at the center of the solar system.

I intend to.

Read the thread, hypocrite.

Contradict yourself much?

Lunatic!

Clete

An Open Theist calling anyone else a lunatic, idiot, or moron is possibly the very pinnacle of irony, nevermind other doctrinal heresies.

It’s a good thing your subjective assessments and opinions have nothing to do with righteousness or truth.

I can hold all cosmological views at arms length (including their relation to quantum considerations) and not have to take a position when such things are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Clete]

Observations in the sky lead to theories, none of which are etched in stone, they're merely observations that men have developed theories to explain. I still believe it's a fixed earth.

Have you read my post where I prove with 8th grade level math that the Earth cannot be flat?

 

[Clete]

An Open Theist calling anyone else a lunatic, idiot, or moron is possibly the very pinnacle of irony, nevermind other doctrinal heresies.

Saying it doesn't make it so, bub!

I dare you to attempt to refute one single syllable of my doctrine. Debating that exact topic was the express purpose behind the creation of this entire website.

As a favorite bible teacher of mine likes to say...

If predestination is true then God predestined me to believe in free will and to win every debate I've ever engaged in with Calvinists.

It’s a good thing your subjective assessments and opinions have nothing to do with righteousness or truth.

You wish this were true but don't actually believe it.

Only people who have doubts about such thing feel the need to make such comments on a debate forum.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I do literally dare you.

I can hold all cosmological views at arms length (including their relation to quantum considerations) and not have to take a position when such things are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

So can I! But if you start spewing stupidity in the name of Christ, you're not going to have me as an ally in you efforts. I will oppose you at every turn and expose you for the fool your words prove you to be. If you don't like being called an idiot, don't admit in public that you spent years investigating whether the Earth was at the center of the solar system. And please don't ever let anyone know that you're a bible believing Christian while discussing it. It makes all of us look like fools.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Have you read my post where I prove with 8th grade level math that the Earth cannot be flat?

It seems like some people cannot understand that there does not have to be a perfect explanation for every detail of the global model to completely debunk the flat earth model.

 

[Clete]

It seems like some people cannot understand that there does not have to be a perfect explanation for every detail of the global model to completely debunk the flat earth model.

True!

I just cannot imagine what their motives are. What in the world could be profited by holding to such positions?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This just came across my Reddit feed. Should help anyone to visualize the area on the earth illuminated by the sun as the year progresses...

https://v.redd.it/krzmtoosdmr21

(Find it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau...angle_of_sun_and_daylight_as_year_progresses/)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Saying it doesn't make it so, bub!

Backatcha. Open Theism didn’t even exist in ANY form until this century. And it’s bunk. I don’t need to debunk it. It’s clear from the entire history and doctrines of the authentic Christian faith to which you don’t subscribe.

I dare you to attempt to refute one single syllable of my doctrine.

Why would anyone bother with such futility and your cognitive dissonance from fallacious God-hating subjective opinion/s.

Debating that exact topic was the express purpose behind the creation of this entire website.

I didn’t know that. That’s quite sad.

As a favorite bible teacher of mine likes to say...

More dialectic nonsense.

If predestination is true then God predestined me to believe in free will and to win every debate I've ever engaged in with Calvinists.

That’s another demonstration that you’re not a biblical linguist, since predestination is not represented in scripture in the manner you presume. Whom he foreknew, them he did also predestinate to be comformed to the image of His Son. Predestination is a contorted doctrinal label, and so is “free” will.

You wish this were true but don't actually believe it.

Keep believing your own hype.

Only people who have doubts about such thing feel the need to make such comments on a debate forum.

LOL. Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I do literally dare you.

You forgot the “nanny, nanny, boo, boo” part, little one.

So can I! But if you start spewing stupidity in the name of Christ, you're not going to have me as an ally in you efforts.

And I didn’t.

I will oppose you at every turn

I’m not concerned. You’re just some raving guy on the internet with heretical antichrist and innovational modernist doctrines. You can’t actually oppose me. You’re referring to trolling, which is basically most of what you do from what I’ve seen. So have at it, “bub”.

and expose you for the fool your words prove you to be.

Fools such as yourself don’t expose anyone for anything.

If you don't like being called an idiot, don't admit in public that you spent years investigating whether the Earth was at the center of the solar system.

More of your pointless subjective opinion without merit.

And please don't ever let anyone know that you're a bible believing Christian while discussing it.

Yeah, because cosmological details are the gospel. LOL. And I don’t advocate for the views you hate so much anyway. But there’s the matter of your various heterodoxies and heresies that are the real problem, yet you won’t ever be relieved of them thinking your doctrine is somehow pristine.

You’re a false law unto yourself, and all because I dared make a handful of benign comments. Your only agenda is to be as uncharitable as possible. Such lovelessness demonstrates your self-importance (like pretending to be the sole guardian of the faith) as much as it does you likely lack of being within the faith.

It makes all of us look like fools.

Clete

You need NO help in this regard, so don’t blame me. You just decided to go off on whomever doesn’t imbibe your whats AND hows/whys for all things. You’re just on a false crusade. Good luck with that. I don’t really need to participate.

Your egoism is neither faithfulness nor truth. And I’m fine with whatever. I couldn’t care less. Enjoy your continued meaningless tyrades to have identity and worth. None of it phases me.

Ciao.

 

[Right Divider]

Backatcha. Open Theism didn’t even exist in ANY form until this century. And it’s bunk. I don’t need to debunk it. It’s clear from the entire history and doctrines of the authentic Christian faith to which you don’t subscribe..

Open Theism has nothing to do with this thread.

Why the need to derail?

Late comer to the thread... hasn't read the thread.... keeps bringing up things that are not related to the thread.... troll. :troll:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Backatcha. Open Theism didn’t even exist in ANY form until this century. And it’s bunk. I don’t need to debunk it. It’s clear from the entire history and doctrines of the authentic Christian faith to which you don’t subscribe.



Why would anyone bother with such futility and your cognitive dissonance from fallacious God-hating subjective opinion/s.



I didn’t know that. That’s quite sad.



More dialectic nonsense.



That’s another demonstration that you’re not a biblical linguist, since predestination is not represented in scripture in the manner you presume. Whom he foreknew, them he did also predestinate to be comformed to the image of His Son. Predestination is a contorted doctrinal label, and so is “free” will.



Keep believing your own hype.



LOL. Whatever you have to tell yourself.



You forgot the “nanny, nanny, boo, boo” part, little one.



And I didn’t.



I’m not concerned. You’re just some raving guy on the internet with heretical antichrist and innovational modernist doctrines. You can’t actually oppose me. You’re referring to trolling, which is basically most of what you do from what I’ve seen. So have at it, “bub”.



Fools such as yourself don’t expose anyone for anything.



More of your pointless subjective opinion without merit.



Yeah, because cosmological details are the gospel. LOL. And I don’t advocate for the views you hate so much anyway. But there’s the matter of your various heterodoxies and heresies that are the real problem, yet you won’t ever be relieved of them thinking your doctrine is somehow pristine.

You’re a false law unto yourself, and all because I dared make a handful of benign comments. Your only agenda is to be as uncharitable as possible. Such lovelessness demonstrates your self-importance (like pretending to be the sole guardian of the faith) as much as it does you likely lack of being within the faith.



You need NO help in this regard, so don’t blame me. You just decided to go off on whomever doesn’t imbibe your whats AND hows/whys for all things. You’re just on a false crusade. Good luck with that. I don’t really need to participate.

Your egoism is neither faithfulness nor truth. And I’m fine with whatever. I couldn’t care less. Enjoy your continued meaningless tyrades to have identity and worth. None of it phases me.

Ciao.

If you are not in this thread to discuss the topic of the thread, please do not post here. This thread is about the flat earth position, et al.

If you continue to try to derail the thread, I will remove you from it.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If you are not in this thread to discuss the topic of the thread, please do not post here. This thread is about the flat earth position, et al.

If you continue to try to derail the thread, I will remove you from it.

K.

 

[7djengo7]

Saying it doesn't make it so, bub!

I dare you to attempt to refute one single syllable of my doctrine. Debating that exact topic was the express purpose behind the creation of this entire website.

As a favorite bible teacher of mine likes to say...

If predestination is true then God predestined me to believe in free will and to win every debate I've ever engaged in with Calvinists.


You wish this were true but don't actually believe it.

Only people who have doubts about such thing feel the need to make such comments on a debate forum.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I do literally dare you.


So can I! But if you start spewing stupidity in the name of Christ, you're not going to have me as an ally in you efforts. I will oppose you at every turn and expose you for the fool your words prove you to be. If you don't like being called an idiot, don't admit in public that you spent years investigating whether the Earth was at the center of the solar system. And please don't ever let anyone know that you're a bible believing Christian while discussing it. It makes all of us look like fools.

Clete

When you say to someone, "prove me wrong", and yet, you are completely unwilling to, or incapable of, declaring what it even is to prove something, what do you really expect them to do?

I asked you what you think it is for someone to prove the proposition, P, and you never told me what you think it is. Why is that?

Do you imagine that you're the only person brilliant enough to go around pounding a fist and saying things like "I have proven that...", or, "I have given proof that...", or "Prove that...", or "You can't prove that...", or "That's no proof that..."? Lots and lots of people says those kind of things all the time. Those who defy your petty, cosmological concerns, with their own petty, cosmological concerns, like flat-earthers and stationary-earthers....do they not go about doing exactly the same thing? They can say "See, I proved it!!!!" just as easily, as loudly, as pompously, as often, and as meaninglessly as you can. And, it all amounts to a pathetic noise, where no party can even begin to say what (if anything) they mean by terms like "prove" and "proof".

You never answered my question as to what, if any, difference you would say there is between proving the proposition, P, to someone, and convincing him of that proposition, P.

Obviously, only an abject idiot would claim that to prove the proposition, P, to so-and-so would be to cause so-and-so to believe P. So, unless you're an abject idiot, when you tell someone to "Prove me wrong!", you don't mean "Cause me to believe that I'm wrong!" It would be especially hilarious to watch someone who despises Calvinists for positing that God causes someone to believe something, turn around and claim that some mere man can cause another man to believe something. Can Clete cause a fellow man to believe something, but God cannot cause one of His creatures to believe something?

So, then, what DO you mean when you tell someone to "Prove me wrong"? What (if anything) are you demanding that they do?

When you say "I proved to you that the earth is round!", what (if anything) do you mean beyond simply reaffirming your belief that the earth is round?

Obviously, you'd be more than happy to say that it has been "proven" to you that the earth is round, no? So, there was a time before it was "proven" to you, and there is a time after it has been "proven" to you, no? So, what (if anything) would you say is the difference between the relation of round-earthism to your mind before it was "proven" to and the relation of round-earthism to your mind since it was "proven" to you? Does not "proving" something have something to do with the relation of the "proved" object and the mind to which the "proved" object is "proved"?

If you can't even begin to try to declare what it is to "prove" something, you're only making yourself into a clown by going about demanding others to "prove" something.

I can see that you've spent (perhaps wasted, even) lots of time learning how to parrot minutiae from whatever it is you call "science", so that you can rage even at Christians who merely tolerate dissent from your particular dogma as to the shape of the earth. But, at the end of the day, like all the secularists and atheists I've wrangled with over the years, what it comes down to is that, you're obviously a wee pygmy when it comes to epistemology. What a stupid choice, to cherish cosmology above epistemology.

A significant percentage of the idiot flat earthers are so in the name of Christianity. It is anything but extraneous. It's making us all look like idiots and pushing people away from their only hope of avoiding an eternity apart from their Creator.

I take your 'us', here, as meant in a "royal we" sort of way; hey, at least you admit that someone is making you look like an idiot.

Perhaps you're pushing people away from you by being so snotty toward them? Perhaps?

 

[JudgeRightly]

When you say to someone, "prove me wrong", and yet, you are completely unwilling to, or incapable of, declaring what it even is to prove something, what do you really expect them to do?

I asked you what you think it is for someone to prove the proposition, P, and you never told me what you think it is. Why is that?

Because it's unnecessary.

Do you imagine that you're the only person brilliant enough to go around pounding a fist and saying things like "I have proven that...", or, "I have given proof that...", or "Prove that...", or "You can't prove that...", or "That's no proof that..."? Lots and lots of people says those kind of things all the time.

Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but this thread is PART 2 of the discussion. The original thread has over 5,000 posts.

Those who defy your petty, cosmological concerns, with their own petty, cosmological concerns, like flat-earthers and stationary-earthers....do they not go about doing exactly the same thing? They can say "See, I proved it!!!!" just as easily, as loudly, as pompously, as often, and as meaninglessly as you can. And, it all amounts to a pathetic noise, where no party can even begin to say what (if anything) they mean by terms like "prove" and "proof".

The difference is...

Clete has every right to be angry, and has, in fact, proved the flat earth position to be wrong.

You want to know what it means to "prove someone wrong"? Read the original thread, then read this one, ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

The original thread alone thoroughly debunks the flat earth position, let alone this thread, which already has 3600+ posts on it's own.

Here is the original thread for you to read through.

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4884612

You never answered my question as to what, if any, difference you would say there is between proving the proposition, P, to someone, and convincing him of that proposition, P.

Obviously, only an abject idiot would claim that to prove the proposition, P, to so-and-so would be to cause so-and-so to believe P. So, unless you're an abject idiot, when you tell someone to "Prove me wrong!", you don't mean "Cause me to believe that I'm wrong!" It would be especially hilarious to watch someone who despises Calvinists for positing that God causes someone to believe something, turn around and claim that some mere man can cause another man to believe something. Can Clete cause a fellow man to believe something, but God cannot cause one of His creatures to believe something?

So, then, what DO you mean when you tell someone to "Prove me wrong"? What (if anything) are you demanding that they do?

When you say "I proved to you that the earth is round!", what (if anything) do you mean beyond simply reaffirming your belief that the earth is round?

Obviously, you'd be more than happy to say that it has been "proven" to you that the earth is round, no? So, there was a time before it was "proven" to you, and there is a time after it has been "proven" to you, no? So, what (if anything) would you say is the difference between the relation of round-earthism to your mind before it was "proven" to and the relation of round-earthism to your mind since it was "proven" to you? Does not "proving" something have something to do with the relation of the "proved" object and the mind to which the "proved" object is "proved"?

If you can't even begin to try to declare what it is to "prove" something, you're only making yourself into a clown by going about demanding others to "prove" something.

Except he's not.

Clete has spent countless hours on this discussion doing exactly what he said he did.

I can see that you've spent (perhaps wasted, even) lots of time learning how to parrot minutiae from whatever it is you call "science", so that you can rage even at Christians who merely tolerate dissent from your particular dogma as to the shape of the earth. But, at the end of the day, like all the secularists and atheists I've wrangled with over the years, what it comes down to is that, you're obviously a wee pygmy when it comes to epistemology. What a stupid choice, to cherish cosmology above epistemology.

I take your 'us', here, as meant in a "royal we" sort of way; hey, at least you admit that someone is making you look like an idiot.

Perhaps you're pushing people away from you by being so snotty toward them? Perhaps?

Or, perhaps by coddling those who are stupid, you're enabling them to remain so, which allows them to damage Christ's name because they're too selfish to admit that they're wrong.

You can lead a flat earther to evidence, but you can't make him think.

Clete has done his part, and has received nothing in return from the flat earth side.

 

[Clete]

Backatcha.

Nope!
I make arguments for what I believe. It's Augustinians (i.e. Calvinist, Catholics, et al.) and idiots who make bald claims without support thinking their boldness makes their case for them.

Open Theism didn’t even exist in ANY form until this century.

I dare you to attempt to establish this claim.

You won't be able to.

And it’s bunk.

It's biblical is what it is and I am fully able to astablish that cliam.

I don’t need to debunk it.

You're unable to is what you mean. If you had the ability, wild horses couldn't keep you from it.

It’s clear from the entire history and doctrines of the authentic Christian faith to which you don’t subscribe.

argumentum ad antiquitatem

The argument from tradition fallacy. You're off to a swimmingly good start!

I couldn't care less about the traditions of men. True doctrine is biblcal and rational - period.

Why would anyone bother with such futility and your cognitive dissonance from fallacious God-hating subjective opinion/s.

Fallacious?

Did you use that word because it means something or was it because it has four syllables and sounds intellectual?

It isn't even close to futilty. This website was created by an open theist and because of open theism. There hasn't been a single open theists defeated in a debate yet, nor will there likely ever be, except perhaps for the occational beginner. It's sort of not fair, really. Classical predestination is just not taught anywhere in the bible at all but what is in there is example after example of things like God changing (not just His mind but I mean actaully becoming something He had never been before), prophecies that didn't come to pass, people, including God, experiencing time in Heaven and all kinds of things that make total sense unless you think everything was predestined in advance and that God is immutable (in the Classic sense of the word).

I didn’t know that. That’s quite sad.

It wouldn't have taken years of dedicated research to discover.

More dialectic nonsense.

No. It's really true. My absolute favorite bible teacher, who's forgeten more about the bible than you'll ever know, says that all the time.

That’s another demonstration that you’re not a biblical linguist, since predestination is not represented in scripture in the manner you presume. Whom he foreknew, them he did also predestinate to be comformed to the image of His Son. Predestination is a contorted doctrinal label, and so is “free” will.

I DARE you to attempt to establish this stupidity.

I am not kidding when I say that I have never once lost a debate with any Calvinist or Catholic (or Arminian for that matter) on this topic. These people abosulely do believe that every single event that occurs does so because and ONLY because God predestined it to be so.

BUT - If you want to redefine the term "predestination" then you go right ahead. You'll either present an "unorhtodox" understanding of the term and thereby defeat your own argument, or you'll argue a doctrine that is only semantically different from Classical Augstininian predestination which will be defeated by the same arguments that would defeat you without the redefinition or you will argue a doctrine that is effectively open theism. There is no scenario where you win.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. I dare you to try.

Keep believing your own hype.

LOL. Whatever you have to tell yourself.

This isn't my first go around here. I don't have to read minds to recognize old patterns.

I actually hope I am wrong. I doubt that I am but if I am then thats good for both of us.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You forgot the “nanny, nanny, boo, boo” part, little one.

I see. You think I'm posturing.

I'm not. If you engage the debate, you will lose. Your doctrined is false, you're very likely a liar. But you are lilely educated which makes you easy to defeat in a debate. You "know" to much.

And I didn’t.

You CLAIM to have spent YEARS doing "extensive authentic research" into whether the Earth is at the center of the solar system.

That's the stupidest waste of time I've ever heard of.

I’m not concerned. You’re just some raving guy on the internet with heretical antichrist and innovational modernist doctrines. You can’t actually oppose me. You’re referring to trolling, which is basically most of what you do from what I’ve seen. So have at it, “bub”.

Hypocrite.

You're on an internet debate forum, moron.

I fight the battle where it's met.

Fools such as yourself don’t expose anyone for anything.

:chuckle:

So says the idiot who spent years of his life in "extensive authentic research" about whether geocentrism is true!

More of your pointless subjective opinion without merit.

That wasn't an opinion it was a statement of fact.

Where do you expect to be able to go where you can state that you spent years investigating whether the Earth is at the center of the solar system and NOT get called an idiot?

Yeah, because cosmological details are the gospel. LOL.

I never made any such claim and you knew that when you made this statment.

Chistians stating stupidity is, however, used all the time as evidence against the faith and it not only keeps people from the gospel but has shipwecked the faith of thousands of believers.

What we say matters. What we believe matters. It has an impact that will resonate through eternity.

And I don’t advocate for the views you hate so much anyway. But there’s the matter of your various heterodoxies and heresies that are the real problem, yet you won’t ever be relieved of them thinking your doctrine is somehow pristine.

I never said my doctrine was prestine. If you can refute one word of it, I'll hear it gladly.

But you won't even try.

You’re a false law unto yourself, and all because I dared make a handful of benign comments.

If there's one thing this thread has taught me is that cosmology is not nearly as benign as people like to pretend it is.

It has liteally poisoned the mind of what was once a very great thinker.

Your only agenda is to be as uncharitable as possible. Such lovelessness demonstrates your self-importance (like pretending to be the sole guardian of the faith) as much as it does you likely lack of being within the faith.

This thread, along with hundreds of other debates I have engaged in are all still here for everyone to read, including you.

You won't bother but if you were to do so, you'd find out that you were quite completely wrong.

You need NO help in this regard, so don’t blame me. You just decided to go off on whomever doesn’t imbibe your whats AND hows/whys for all things. You’re just on a false crusade. Good luck with that. I don’t really need to participate.

Whatever excuse you need.

Your egoism is neither faithfulness nor truth. And I’m fine with whatever. I couldn’t care less. Enjoy your continued meaningless tyrades to have identity and worth. None of it phases me.

Ciao.

:wave2:



That's one less Christian getting on here propogating this complete insanity!

Clete

 

[7djengo7]

When you say to someone, "prove me wrong", and yet, you are completely unwilling to, or incapable of, declaring what it even is to prove something, what do you really expect them to do?

I asked [Clete] what [he] think it is for someone to prove the proposition, P, and [he] never told me what [he] think it is. Why is that?

Because it's unnecessary.

Nah. That's a transparent cop-out. It was a rhetorical question, the answer to which is, "Because Clete can't." He knows, as well as you and I know, that he has no answer to it. If he could, he would. And why can't he? Because, when he (and others) say "I have proven x, y, and z!!!", they mean absolutely nothing more than a re-emphasis of their belief of x, y, and z.

The only honest answer from Clete would be: "When it comes right down to it, you know, I really don't know how to answer the question. I don't necessarily mean something when I say 'I have proven...', and, if anything, I suppose I'm merely emotively reasserting the point that I want you to come to believe."

Flat-earther: "I have proven that the earth is flat."
Round-earther: "No, you haven't. Rather, I have proven that the earth is round."
Flat-earther: "No, you haven't. I have proven....."

Such a farce goes on, and on, to absolutely zero purpose, until at least one of the parties tires out or is drawn off to other things.

See, these two clowns, the flat-earth cheer-leader and the round-earth cheer-leader, are doing nothing more than pounding their fists at each other. Neither of them has the least bit of a clue as to how to answer questions like "What do you mean by 'prove'?", or "What would you say it is to prove something?" And, since they can't answer such questions, it's especially stupid for them to say to someone "Prove X!" They are parrots. In relation to such questions, they are of exactly the same mindset as all the atheists (and other assorted anti-Christians) of whom I've asked the same questions over the years. Everybody's a wiz at saying "I've proven it!", "Just prove it!", or "The burden of proof is on you!"; but, everybody is stone silent when asked "What is proving?" That's, inevitably, an embarrassing question for every know-it-all (such as Clete) to be asked.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nah. That's a transparent cop-out. It was a rhetorical question, the answer to which is, "Because Clete can't." He knows, as well as you and I know, that he has no answer to it. If he could, he would. And why can't he? Because, when he (and others) say "I have proven x, y, and z!!!", they mean absolutely nothing more than a re-emphasis of their belief of x, y, and z.

The only honest answer from Clete would be: "When it comes right down to it, you know, I really don't know how to answer the question. I don't necessarily mean something when I say 'I have proven...', and, if anything, I suppose I'm merely emotively reasserting the point that I want you to come to believe."

Flat-earther: "I have proven that the earth is flat."
Round-earther: "No, you haven't. Rather, I have proven that the earth is round."
Flat-earther: "No, you haven't. I have proven....."

Such a farce goes on, and on, to absolutely zero purpose, until at least one of the parties tires out or is drawn off to other things.

See, these two clowns, the flat-earth cheer-leader and the round-earth cheer-leader, are doing nothing more than pounding their fists at each other. Neither of them has the least bit of a clue as to how to answer questions like "What do you mean by 'prove'?", or "What would you say it is to prove something?" And, since they can't answer such questions, it's especially stupid for them to say to someone "Prove X!" They are parrots. In relation to such questions, they are of exactly the same mindset as all the atheists (and other assorted anti-Christians) of whom I've asked the same questions over the years. Everybody's a wiz at saying "I've proven it!", "Just prove it!", or "The burden of proof is on you!"; but, everybody is stone silent when asked "What is proving?" That's, inevitably, an embarrassing question for every know-it-all (such as Clete) to be asked.

You would have a point, if it weren't for the fact, yes, FACT, that Clete HAS proven his position to be true.

The threads are still there for everyone to read. That you won't shows you're not willing concede that Clete can and has backed up his claim that his position is true, and that the flat earth position is false.

I agree, anyone can claim that they're right, and that in and of itself doesn't make it so.

But Clete can do more than just claim that his position is correct, because he has already done just that. The more than 8 thousand posts in the two threads combined are his witnesses.

Clete is anything BUT a "cheer leader" for his position, because he has the posts to back up his claims.

 

[7djengo7]

You would have a point, if it weren't for the fact, yes, FACT, that Clete HAS proven his position to be true.

Facts are meaningful. Something that is not meaningful is not a fact. When someone says "I have proven...", and they mean nothing by it, they are saying something meaningless. I'm, of course, not saying that what you're saying--"Clete HAS proven his position to be true"--is false. Rather, I'm saying that it doesn't even rise to the level of falsehood, in fact, since falsehood is not meaningless. "Clete HAS proven his position to be true" is simply meaningless, since you do not mean anything by "proven"; what you said is neither true (factual) nor false.

All you've done, here, is nothing more than to reassert that you agree with Clete about the shape of the earth.

The threads are still there for everyone to read. That you won't shows you're not willing concede that Clete can and has backed up his claim that his position is true, and that the flat earth position is false.

Once again, you're just reasserting that Clete is right about the shape of the earth and that others are wrong. Look, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with asserting, in and of itself. It's always wrong, of course, to assert falsehood. And, I'm not even saying that Clete is asserting falsehood in asserting that the earth is round. I'm simply saying that you seem to imagine that Clete--in creating 8,000+ posts in which he repeatedly professes his round-earth belief, saying "I have proven, x, y, z!"--has done something somehow more than, or better than, or to some greater effect than merely asserting, and reasserting x, y, z. And Clete's and your problem is that you have no idea how to even begin trying to describe what (if anything) that something extra might be. You cannot say what (if anything) is being effected in the event you call "proving"; you cannot say what (if any) change there is in the state of affairs from before a proposition has been "proven" to after it has been "proven". Since you can't even say what (if anything) you think it means to prove a proposition, every additional time you say "Clete has proven that the earth is round!" amounts to no more than adding another exclamation mark, as follows:

"Clete has proven that the earth is round!"
"Clete has proven that the earth is round!!"
"Clete has proven that the earth is round!!!"
"Clete has proven that the earth is round!!!!"
and so on....​

Actually, what it really reduces to is that, every time you say "Clete has proven that the earth is round!", you may as well save yourself a few syllables and just say "The earth is round!", since you really are saying no more than just that.

I agree, anyone can claim that they're right, and that in and of itself doesn't make it so.

I agree. Saying "X is so" does not make X so, and saying "X is not so" does not make X not so. And, of course, saying "Saying 'X is so' does not make X so" does not make X not so.

But Clete can do more than just claim that his position is correct, because he has already done just that.

That "more" that you say Clete has done....that's exactly the thing I've asked about, numerous times: What is it for Clete to have (as you and he say) "proven" that he is right? So far, neither you, nor he, nor anybody else, has answered that question; in fact, you said that it is "unnecessary" to answer it. You say that because you know that you cannot answer the question, but it's obviously far easier to say "It is unnecessary to answer it" than to admit "I cannot answer it."

The more than 8 thousand posts in the two threads combined are his witnesses.

Witnesses, though, to what, beyond that Clete believes the earth is round, and that Clete says "I have proven that the earth is round", without being the least bit able to say what (if anything) he means by "proven", "prove", "proof", etc.? Obviously, you will not want to say that, whenever you say someone has "proven" the proposition, P, what you mean is that "they have created 8,000+ posts in a forum proving the proposition, P". For, then you will have just tried to use the very term you were asked to explain, to explain the term you were asked to explain, which will be to fail to explain the term you were asked to explain. You may as well just say, "To prove the proposition, P, is to prove the proposition, P!" And, of course, to do that will be of no use to anybody.

Clete is anything BUT a "cheer leader" for his position, because he has the posts to back up his claims.

Not only is Clete a boisterous (perhaps even cheerless) cheer-leader for his round-earth claims, but he is also a hotheaded inquisitor toward not only those Christians who contradict his position, but even to those Christians who--like [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]--without contradicting Clete's position, merely express skepticism toward it, and toleration for those who do contradict Clete's claims.

Lots of people, in all sorts of debates, on all sorts of topics, say "I back up my claims" or "He backs up his claims", just like you are saying "Clete backs up his claims". Round-earth people say "I back up my claims." So what? Flat-earth people say the same thing. So, what do you do, at that point? Do you say, "No, you don't!"? Why, they just turn right around and rejoin, "Yes, I do; you are the one who does not back up your claims!" Such a scene is quite pitiful in its childishness, and its endless uselessness. Frustration stemming from a sense of the futility of such a pointless exchange leads someone like Clete to react angrily:

"I find no satisfaction in simply repeating, over and over,'I have proven that the earth is round'; perhaps I shall find some satisfaction in resorting to copping an air of righteous indignation against my fellow Christians who don't take my word for it that the earth is round!!!!!!"​

I notice that you introduce another term, here, besides "prove": "back up". Clete "backs up" his claims, you say. Is Clete's "proving" his claims the same as Clete's "backing up" his claims? If not, then what would you say is the difference? But, in order to answer that question, you'd have to be able to answer the question I've been asking: What is proving? Obviously, since you can't say what (if anything) proving is (and, so far neither you, nor anybody else, has even tried to do so), you'd be doubly up a creek without a paddle, were you to try to say how "backing up a claim" is different from "proving a claim".