Flat Earthers

[Tubehunter]

You taking offense for me answering your question as to why people are drawing similarities between the two, is a little different than you telling me to GFY.

 

I have been very specific about why they are similar.

 

THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR!

 

One has evidence to the contrary. The other does not!

[Odinson]

Okes...

 

[Eldron]

NOPE! THERE IS EVIDENCE THE EARTH IS ROUND!

 

There is no evidence for or against whether GOD exists.

 

You guys are seriously starting to p1$$ me off with your contentious efforts to continuously make a mockery. If you don't WANT to understand stop pretending to debate something you clearly have no desire to grapple with.

I think you understood my post the wrong way around. I meant there is no evidence the earth is flat. Plus no evidence to prove god exists. That's the commonality.

 

Nothing contentious at all.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Myles Mayhew

[Barend de Arend]

The fact is about half of what we know and accept as fact is wrong - just we dont know which half. 

 

Given that science is a very large bucket in itself ranging from simple scientific facts to quantum physics, string theory and the like, truth can and will often sound like fiction - especially in the realm of the very small i.e. subatomic physics - which is best left to the 5 or 10 people in the world who truly understand it aka Mr Hawkings.

 

Even Einstein did not believe his findings, and only much later were they proved true.

 

Its easier to look at the world as we experience it and draw conclusions from that - go an google James Randi - especially the Youtube video on whether God Exists - basically explains what i am saying.

 

Science is quite happy with the answer "I don't know."  That's part of science.  My boss isn't happy with that answer, but science is.  That means science is pretty sure about what we don't know.  It doesn't pretend we do know.

 

 

Science is a way of obtaining facts, rather than a set of facts.  Science is a method for obtaining a result, rather than the result.

 

 

It's easier to look at the world as we experience it, but it'd be more prone to error.

 

I experience my chair to be solid.  Hence I'm sitting in my chair.  There are massive gaps between the molecules, but my experience is that my chair is solid.

 

I don't experience gamma-rays at all, but ignoring their existence could easily prove fatal.

 

 

Also a note on science: it encourages clear debate.  You need to tell me your argument, you shouldn't tell me: "google something.  somewhere amongst that something is my argument."  (a) I'm not going to google it, and (b) I'm not going to know which bit of what I googled is the bit you refer to.

[Barend de Arend]

Surely this argument doesn't require us to understand from where earth comes in order to determine its shape? Earth has matter and this can be measured and has. Flat earthers clearly are determined to ignore any basis of proven undisputed facts and remain consciously ignorant which is just another way of stating deliberately stupid, however blissful they perceive that!

 

Where the earth comes from can very well influence it's shape.

 

It's the same reason most stellar objects are mostly spherical.  They were formed by gravity from randomly clumped space dust.  They'll tend to be spherical.  Throw up a bunch of dust into a vacuum and wait a billion years, and go look

 

 

It's not the only reason we have to believe that the earth is round, but it does add yet another argument for a spherical world.

['Kaze Pete]

So... is the earth flat? Please a purely scientific discussion. Feel welcome to quote science from the dark ages if you like your earth like your chicken flatties

[Eldron]

Science is quite happy with the answer "I don't know." That's part of science. My boss isn't happy with that answer, but science is. That means science is pretty sure about what we don't know. It doesn't pretend we do know.

 

 

Science is a way of obtaining facts, rather than a set of facts. Science is a method for obtaining a result, rather than the result.

 

 

It's easier to look at the world as we experience it, but it'd be more prone to error.

 

I experience my chair to be solid. Hence I'm sitting in my chair. There are massive gaps between the molecules, but my experience is that my chair is solid.

 

I don't experience gamma-rays at all, but ignoring their existence could easily prove fatal.

 

 

Also a note on science: it encourages clear debate. You need to tell me your argument, you shouldn't tell me: "google something. somewhere amongst that something is my argument." (a) I'm not going to google it, and (b) I'm not going to know which bit of what I googled is the bit you refer to.

Nice post.

 

For me it's about the book(s).

 

In science we observe, measure, calculate, postulate, write, read, peer review and publish. That's how the book(s) happen.

 

In religion we write ONE book first. Then everybody must believe or face dire consequences. There is no professor to ask - no questioning is possible.

 

Arse about face in my opinion...

 

That said - I'm all for people believing in religion. I believe religion is, in essence, good. If people followed the 10 commandments the world would be a pretty sweet place.

[Jenna Chicky]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you know anything about how science works or the scientific method. There is no faith involved in science.

 

You are right though when you say science cannot prove that there is no higher power. It can't, and it doesn't claim to. You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven in the 1st place.

I think you need to read my post again.

I actually make it quite clear that science does not work on faith but science much as those who operate on faith can be seen as pure speculation.

When it applies to that which we can not see and we claim the believers are on a path of delusion then surely the scientists that can not empirically prove that there is no higher power would also be on a path of delusion.

[Jenna Chicky]

It's clear that you have little understanding of the nature of the scientific method. Rather read up on it before posting such drivel.

Drivel is what the world revolves around and much of what people state is pure drivel.

Just like your assumption as to what kind of understanding people have of science or not.

[Jenna Chicky]

Its always difficult to argue with people around these topics. the only way is repeatable reults and evidence based testing.

...

Absolutely in support of this comment .

[Thor Buttox]

I think you need to read my post again.

I actually make it quite clear that science does not work on faith but science much as those who operate on faith can be seen as pure speculation.

When it applies to that which we can not see and we claim the believers are on a path of delusion then surely the scientists that can not empirically prove that there is no higher power would also be on a path of delusion.

The scientists are not on the path at all - explicitly. Scientists will make a hypothesis and then through independent, repeatable tests with built in systematic checks and balances, either verify or refute that hypothesis. If scientists were to hypothesise that God does not exist and test it, they would prove nothing because it is an illogical proposition, and one used by believers to semantically argue that somehow existence is proved by the inability to prove otherwise. This is, at best, the thinking of an unformed mind.

 

We have had some very good discussions on this in other threads here recently, with both civility and an attempt at mutual understanding.

 

Specifically as relates to 'things we cannot see' there are meaningful ways in which our feelings and experiences can be measured critically and clinically. Even some who had some rather rather atypical steroid rage earlier today would admit (I think) that there is much evidence which circumstantially does point to far more simple and boring solutions to religious experiences.

 

And as my little contribution to the flat-earth false equivalence debate of earlier: no, we cannot prove God does not exist. But there significant building blacks to the believer's God hypothesis which are easily disproved, and faith requires the believer to wilfully suspend disbelief in order to fulfil their spiritual obligations and desires. Tube and I even developed a delicate bromance of nuanced understanding in this regard.

 

But at no point does it begin to approach the rigour of the scientific method.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Thor Buttox

[andydude]

[Jenna Chicky]

The scientists are not on the path at all - explicitly. Scientists will make a hypothesis and then through independent, repeatable tests with built in systematic checks and balances, either verify or refute that hypothesis. If scientists were to hypothesise that God does not exist and test it, they would prove nothing because it is an illogical proposition, and one used by believers to semantically argue that somehow existence is proved by the inability to prove otherwise. This is, at best, the thinking of an unformed mind.

 

 

Science or scientists often come forward with a hypothesis that God does not exist.

This is normally followed with much speculation and opinion from said scientist themselves.

Their opinions and speculation becomes a forced verification even though they have failed to do all the systematic checks and balances as you call them.

Saying it is an "illogical proposition" and that believers may use this as a convenient way to try and justify the existence of a God is actually quite a blinkered and one sided view.

 

I support fully what Paul Ruinard said here.

Its always difficult to argue with people around these topics. the only way is repeatable reults and evidence based testing.

...

 

But I can also support what Tubehunter said here .

Until science proves otherwise I will continue to feel connected to my spirituality and personal relationship I sense with my creator.

['Kaze Pete]

Will any of this change if the earth is (not) flat?

['Kaze Pete]

Back to the actual topic. Focus! 

 

 

Anybody willing to argue / refute this?