The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Nathon Detroit]

Common sense is a fallacy of flat earth, I sent you all the memo/video.

We can agree about what we, from earth, actually see. The sun and moon appear round. That we see it as round from all directions on earth leads us to believe both sun and moon are spheres.

I also look for common ground, what is your opinion of flat earth being a common sense fallacy?

Are our senses reliable?

--Dave

So.... we can't even agree for certain that the sun is a sphere???? "the sun appears round" is as far as you can go?? Really Dave??

If the sun isn't a sphere how can is "appear round" from any vantage point, at any time of day, from anywhere in the world?

What other shape could it theoretically be?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The answer in both cases is ABOVE IT.

Heaven, as a place with location, can only exist "above" and outside of a domed flat earth with small sun, moon, and stars moving just above, or at the top of, the dome.

In the globe model with earth being a planet among many planets in a galaxy among many galaxies, heaven is not above or any where close to us in this universe. Heaven would be outside of the entire universe. For many, heaven is a timeless/spaceless spirit realm that surrounds us at all times in all places.

Heaven and hell are both a place or neither is a place.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So.... we can't even agree for certain that the sun is a sphere???? "the sun appears round" is as far as you can go?? Really Dave??

If the sun isn't a sphere how can is "appear round" from any vantage point, at any time of day, from anywhere in the world?

What other shape could it theoretically be?

I said we can agree it's a sphere. Read more carefully.

--Dave

 

[Foxfire]

View attachment 25736

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I said we can agree it's a sphere. Read more carefully.

--Dave

Okay, I'm sorry. Your post sounded like you were not sure. When you said "leads us to believe" I took that as you couldn't be certain.

I'm glad to hear you can be certain.

That's great!! We can agree the sun is a sphere.

That's all I wanted.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought we never see the "dark side of the moon" because it never faces the earth as it rotates around it.

So how can these pictures show the "dark side of the moon" with earth shine?

--Dave

It's called exposure time, David, something I thought you might know about, since you seem (or at least claim) to know so much about cameras.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I said we can agree it's a sphere. Read more carefully.

--Dave

Still waiting on the answers to these two questions, Dave.

Dave, please stop trying to obfuscate and clearly answer the questions I asked you:

First of all, which model (using the verse below) describes God's majesty as greater, the flat earth model, where everything above the earth is just an image/hologram, or the model that the earth is a globe spinning in space, orbiting a star which is orbiting around the center of a galaxy?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

Thus says the Lord: "Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." - Isaiah 66:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah66:1-2&version=NKJV

Second, using the verses above, which model of the universe fits the statement that "all those things exist", the flat earth model, or the globe earth model?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's called exposure time, David, something I thought you might know about, since you seem (or at least claim) to know so much about cameras.

"A 15 second exposure of tonight's crescent moon reveals Earthshine: light reflecting from Earth to the dark side of the moon" --http://imgur.com/1UFgbzS

I think you better read what you post before you post it.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

"A 15 second exposure of tonight's crescent moon reveals Earthshine: light reflecting from Earth to the dark side of the moon" --http://imgur.com/1UFgbzS

I think you better read what you post before you post it.

--Dave

Dave, you're the one not paying attention.

You know what a crescent moon is, correct?

Which portion of the moon in that picture is a crescent?

Which portion is darker, the crescent or the rest?

Which portion do you think is being illuminated by the sun? By earthshine?

Is the part lit up by the sun normally that bright? Or did the 15 second exposure amplify the light being reflected off of that portion?

Now, do you think that a 15 second exposure would do much in the way of amplifying the light being reflected on the darker portion?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you're the one not paying attention.

You know what a crescent moon is, correct?

Which portion of the moon in that picture is a crescent?

Which portion is darker, the crescent or the rest?

Which portion do you think is being illuminated by the sun? By earthshine?

Is the part lit up by the sun normally that bright? Or did the 15 second exposure amplify the light being reflected off of that portion?

Now, do you think that a 15 second exposure would do much in the way of amplifying the light being reflected on the darker portion?

My mistake. I was equating the "far side of the moon" with "the dark side of the moon".

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Okay, I'm sorry. Your post sounded like you were not sure. When you said "leads us to believe" I took that as you couldn't be certain.

I'm glad to hear you can be certain.

That's great!! We can agree the sun is a sphere.

That's all I wanted.

Good, now what about my request?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Empirical evidence
"Also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge)."--Wiki

When we begin an examination for the evidence of stationary flat vs spinning globe earth the very first or most important objection is that sensory perception is not reliable because what we see and experience is limited and unreliable.

When we begin an examination of the evidence for the existence of God we are told the same. But with God we are not dealing with a physical material Being as we are with a physical material world.

Yet Christianity is based on Christ's physical material resurrection and ascension. He appears to his disciples with empirical evidence of his material physical existence after death.

If we deny the reliability of sense perception and empirical evidence it is the foundation of we cannot know anything about the earth if it is globe or flat, stationary or spinning.

Flat earth is not based on a sensory/common sense fallacy.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Empirical evidence
"Also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge)."--Wiki

When we begin an examination for the evidence of stationary flat vs spinning globe earth the very first or most important objection is that sensory perception is not reliable because what we see and experience is limited and unreliable.

When we begin an examination of the evidence for the existence of God we are told the same. But with God we are not dealing with a physical material Being as we are with a physical material world.

Yet Christianity is based on Christ's physical material resurrection and ascension. He appears to his disciples with empirical evidence of his material physical existence after death.

If we deny the reliability of sense perception and empirical evidence it is the foundation of we cannot know anything about the earth if it is globe or flat, stationary or spinning.

Flat earth is not based on a sensory/common sense fallacy.

--Dave

You still have not answered my questions, Dave, and you now seem to be ignoring them. Please answer them:

First of all, which model (using the verse below) describes God's majesty as greater, the flat earth model, where everything above the earth is just an image/hologram, or the model that the earth is a globe spinning in space, orbiting a star which is orbiting around the center of a galaxy?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

Thus says the Lord: "Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." - Isaiah 66:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah66:1-2&version=NKJV

Second, using the verses above, which model of the universe fits the statement that "all those things exist", the flat earth model, or the globe earth model?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

 

[Right Divider]

Heaven, as a place with location, can only exist "above" and outside of a domed flat earth with small sun, moon, and stars moving just above, or at the top of, the dome.

In the globe model with earth being a planet among many planets in a galaxy among many galaxies, heaven is not above or any where close to us in this universe. Heaven would be outside of the entire universe. For many, heaven is a timeless/spaceless spirit realm that surrounds us at all times in all places.

That is simply wrong Dave and based upon YOUR bias.

BTW Dave, in the Bible there is more than one heaven.

Heaven and hell are both a place or neither is a place.

--Dave

And neither has to be defined only by Dave based upon his incorrect flat-earth bias.

 

[Right Divider]

Flat earth is not based on a sensory/common sense fallacy.

:rotfl:
Very funny Dave.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Good, now what about my request?

--Dave

Please be more specific. What request?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please be more specific. What request?

You still have not answered my questions, Dave, and you now seem to be ignoring them. Please answer them:

First of all, which model (using the verse below) describes God's majesty as greater, the flat earth model, where everything above the earth is just an image/hologram, or the model that the earth is a globe spinning in space, orbiting a star which is orbiting around the center of a galaxy?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

Thus says the Lord: "Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." - Isaiah 66:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah66:1-2&version=NKJV

Second, using the verses above, which model of the universe fits the statement that "all those things exist", the flat earth model, or the globe earth model?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

 

[Clete]

Empirical evidence
"Also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge)."--Wiki

When we begin an examination for the evidence of stationary flat vs spinning globe earth the very first or most important objection is that sensory perception is not reliable because what we see and experience is limited and unreliable.

Limited, yes but unreliable?

The thrust of such an objection is to undermine reason itself. No scientifically minded person would make such an unqualified objection. Instead, they would acknowledge the limitations of our senses and insist that experimental results be confirmed independently.

When we begin an examination of the evidence for the existence of God we are told the same. But with God we are not dealing with a physical material Being as we are with a physical material world.

Yet Christianity is based on Christ's physical material resurrection and ascension. He appears to his disciples with empirical evidence of his material physical existence after death.

If we deny the reliability of sense perception and empirical evidence it is the foundation of we cannot know anything about the earth if it is globe or flat, stationary or spinning.

Everything you said in this last sentence past the word 'anything' should have been left out of the sentence.

Flat earth is not based on a sensory/common sense fallacy.

--Dave

It's based on every fallacy you can name! Hasty Generalization Fallacy, Circular Reasoning Fallacy, Question Begging Fallacy, Red Herring Fallacy, Appeal to Popularity Fallacy, Appeal to Authority Fallacy, Affirming the Consequent Fallacy and probably half a dozen more that I can't think of off the top of my head.


Here's the thing you HAVE to remember about comparing what you see with one cosmology or another. You have to look for falsifying evidence. In other words, you have to guard against confirmation bias. You cannot say, "The Earth seems flat to me, therefore the Earth is flat." that doesn't work because your inability to see or feel the curvature of the Earth does not prove that it doesn't exist. The thing you have to remember is that nothing you see, nothing that you would call empirical evidence, contradicts the globe Earth model -quite the contrary, in fact. Anything that you think does contradict it, is an example of a hasty generalization or affirming the consequent fallacy. In fact, I think I can say with some confidence that this thread is the greatest example of sloppy thinking that this site has yet produced. It is certainly your magnum opus of irrational thought. I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm just calling it the way I see it. I wouldn't have thought you capable of such irrationality.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

You still have not answered my questions, Dave, and you now seem to be ignoring them. Please answer them:

First of all, which model (using the verse below) describes God's majesty as greater, the flat earth model, where everything above the earth is just an image/hologram, or the model that the earth is a globe spinning in space, orbiting a star which is orbiting around the center of a galaxy?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

Thus says the Lord: "Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist," Says the Lord. "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word." - Isaiah 66:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah66:1-2&version=NKJV

Second, using the verses above, which model of the universe fits the statement that "all those things exist", the flat earth model, or the globe earth model?
A) Flat Earth model
B) Globe Earth model

Scripture, this one included favor flat earth.

A location for heaven and hell are clearly reasons why.

Now tell me where heaven and hell are.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is simply wrong Dave and based upon YOUR bias.

BTW Dave, in the Bible there is more than one heaven.


And neither has to be defined only by Dave based upon his incorrect flat-earth bias.

Then explain where heaven and hell are?

--Dave