Flat Earthers

[Patchelicious]

Back to the actual topic. Focus!

 

img_9688.jpeg

 

Anybody willing to argue / refute this?

Just about anybody who can grasp the concept that gravity is a 3 dimensional force. Including my 5 year old cousin.

[Eldron]

Just about anybody who can grasp the concept that gravity is a 3 dimensional force. Including my 5 year old cousin.

For sure.

 

If in doubt throw a ball in the air then stand underneath it and look up - if the ball hits you in the face then the answer should hit you in the brain ????

['Kaze Pete]

Just about anybody who can grasp the concept that gravity is a 3 dimensional force. Including my 5 year old cousin.

I am posing a supposed proof. I am looking at testing the scientific process. All I get is “even a 5 year old gets it” type of response..?

 

Sounds unscientific to me. Proof is rejected as not proof but emotion.

 

PS not picking on you Patch. Merely testing processes and adherence to those

[Thor Buttox]

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.

There is much more to this on the 'itvs time...' thread and I'm not going to rewrite it all here. But I am not blinkered, nor am I averse to a philosophical discussion on the merits of the topic. But you need to be categorically aware that science is not physically able to prove the non-existence of God. Nor will it ever be able to. There is no end condition suitable for testing. If you do not understand that, we cannot discuss it. And I am genuinely not trying to be dismissive - it is just a fact.

 

The other side of this is that faith or spirituality is not some nebulous thing that exists in a vacuum. It is real and it is human, and it should not be belittled. If u are interested in how we got to a fairly harmonious situation, go through that thread. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Thor Buttox

[Thor Buttox]

Back to the actual topic. Focus!

 

img_9688.jpeg

 

Anybody willing to argue / refute this?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2014/nov/07/water-bubble-space-science-video

 

Sometimes you just need to get high...

[Patchelicious]

I am posing a supposed proof. I am looking at testing the scientific process. All I get is “even a 5 year old gets it” type of response..?

 

Sounds unscientific to me. Proof is rejected as not proof but emotion.

 

PS not picking on you Patch. Merely testing processes and adherence to those

Oh ok, sorry, thought the question was loaded with sarcasm.

 

So you are actually wanting proof on how gravity works?

[Piston ZA]

Back to the actual topic. Focus! 

 

img_9688.jpeg

 

Anybody willing to argue / refute this? 

That is an extremely simplistic, and dishonest way of portraying that. It has taken no account of scale, and obviously assumes a flat earth. Water does curve. On a small scale, like in a bowl, it will appear to be completely flat, but it is not. 

[Piston ZA]

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.

They do not. Yes, a scientists can have an opinion on whether or not there is a god, but that does not mean it is science. It is not a hypothesis. I still don't believe you know what the scientific method is.

 

Again, you cannot use the scientific method to disprove a negative. If you disagree, please use it or your own method to disprove my claim that I have an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, that will only telepathically talk to me, and me alone.

[Jurgens Smit]

They do not. Yes, a scientists can have an opinion on whether or not there is a god, but that does not mean it is science. It is not a hypothesis. I still don't believe you know what the scientific method is.

 

Again, you cannot use the scientific method to disprove a negative. If you disagree, please use it or your own method to disprove my claim that I have an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, that will only telepathically talk to me, and me alone.

 

I think the problem is how few people actually know what hypothesis means.

In the case of scientists try to prove or disprove Gods existence is a theory not hypothesis.

 

But can we please leave the discussions regarding whether or not there is a God to the relevant thread? This clearly has nothing to do with the flat earth theory.

[Patchelicious]

I think the problem is how few people actually know what hypothesis means.

In the case of scientists try to prove or disprove Gods existence is a theory not hypothesis.

 

But can we please leave the discussions regarding whether or not there is a God to the relevant thread? This clearly has nothing to do with the flat earth theory.

The discussion was not about if there is/is not a god, it was about the methods people use to arrive at that conclusion and being asked to disprove a negative. "Scientific methodologies" is very relevant to this thread.

[Jurgens Smit]

The discussion was not about if there is/is not a god, it was about the methods people use to arrive at that conclusion and being asked to disprove a negative. "Scientific methodologies" is very relevant to this thread.

 

I know, but if we don't divert this now it's another thread derailed from what is actually an interesting topic.

 

Lets keep science and religion as far apart as possible because the debates always go to ****.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Jurgens Smit

[popcorn_skollie]

There is much more to this on the 'itvs time...' thread and I'm not going to rewrite it all here. But I am not blinkered, nor am I averse to a philosophical discussion on the merits of the topic. But you need to be categorically aware that science is not physically able to prove the non-existence of God. Nor will it ever be able to. There is no end condition suitable for testing. If you do not understand that, we cannot discuss it. And I am genuinely not trying to be dismissive - it is just a fact.

 

The other side of this is that faith or spirituality is not some nebulous thing that exists in a vacuum. It is real and it is human, and it should not be belittled. If u are interested in how we got to a fairly harmonious situation, go through that thread. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

If I could give you more than one like I would. It was an absolute pleasure to read.

I've been in and out there but not too often recently. This eloquent summary hits home though.

 

Back to the topic and how it relates to what you said. Well at least to me. Science has a way of well. Changing things. Now before you start rolling your eyes let me offer some perspective.

 

A simple example. Remember when Pluto was a planet? Man I'm still rooting for Pluto being a planet. It was like one of those things you memorized as a kid. Along with other valuable forget me nots like: look left, then right and left again before crossing the road. Pizza is spelled with two "Z's" for some odd reason and that there are 9 planets which orbit the sun in our solar system, the last of which, is Pluto.

 

Nothing about Pluto itself has changed. What has changed was our definition of the word 'planet'. Pluto no longer fit that criteria and just because its a small guy far away with some weird shaped orbit. It gets tossed out of the family. My argument is simple. Pluto, however odd and diminutive it may be. Still orbits our sun. Like we do. Its one of us dammit. Then they bring up the Eris Asteroid and yeah it gets messy.

 

Thing is. That's just a definition. The starting point of any debate. If opposing sides are discussing a topic and both parties are using the same words and expressions while each having different views of what they actually mean.

Then even straight up facts can suddenly seem arbitrary. 

[Patchelicious]

I know, but if we don't divert this now it's another thread derailed from what is actually an interesting topic.

 

Lets keep science and religion as far apart as possible because the debates always go to ****.

 

This thread is specifically about people believing that the earth is flat contrary to direct and real scientific evidence.

 

I appreciate what you are attempting to do, but avoiding a topic is not needed if people stick core issues and don't get distracted by straw man arguments.

 

Flat Earther's "beliefs" are not the same as other "religions", but they are still "beliefs".

The mistake thats being made here, is that each time somebody says the word beliefs or religion, they take it as an attack on "MY belief and religion". Its not.

[Pure Savage]

Are they the same people that believe they should not vaccinate their kids?

 

I do love how France has now made it law that you must get vaccinated, removing decisions from idiots that have no medical knowledge. This was due to 12 kids dying this year from completely preventable causes.  

[Patchelicious]

Are they the same people that believe they should not vaccinate their kids?

 

I do love how France has now made it law that you must get vaccinated, removing decisions from idiots that have no medical knowledge. This was due to 12 kids dying this year from completely preventable causes.  

Im sure a few of them must share that belief, after all its a very similar concept: Science is very clear on something, but we choose to believe something different.

[Thor Buttox]

If I could give you more than one like I would. It was an absolute pleasure to read.

I've been in and out there but not too often recently. This eloquent summary hits home though.

 

Back to the topic and how it relates to what you said. Well at least to me. Science has a way of well. Changing things. Now before you start rolling your eyes let me offer some perspective.

 

A simple example. Remember when Pluto was a planet? Man I'm still rooting for Pluto being a planet. It was like one of those things you memorized as a kid. Along with other valuable forget me nots like: look left, then right and left again before crossing the road. Pizza is spelled with two "Z's" for some odd reason and that there are 9 planets which orbit the sun in our solar system, the last of which, is Pluto.

 

Nothing about Pluto itself has changed. What has changed was our definition of the word 'planet'. Pluto no longer fit that criteria and just because its a small guy far away with some weird shaped orbit. It gets tossed out of the family. My argument is simple. Pluto, however odd and diminutive it may be. Still orbits our sun. Like we do. Its one of us dammit. Then they bring up the Eris Asteroid and yeah it gets messy.

 

Thing is. That's just a definition. The starting point of any debate. If opposing sides are discussing a topic and both parties are using the same words and expressions while each having different views of what they actually mean.

Then even straight up facts can suddenly seem arbitrary.

Well, let's first say that the volume of a pizza of radius Z and thickness a is Pi.z.z.a.

 

Why is this even vaguely relevant? Because as you correctly said, a definition is everything. I cannot prove the sky is not blue if I have colour blindness, unless we can agree that blue is a wavelength of specific frequency that can be independently measured. I may not agree that it looks blue to me but I then have to amend my expectations based on circumstance. The redefinition of Pluto is a change of circumstance - and it is understood that the definition of a planet and a planetissimal is arbitrary in the same way that you and I may be Rick and Roger, but still human if you define us as a 23 chromosomed mammal. (And even then, chromosome deficiencies cause issues, so...)

 

The problem with all these what I call semantic discussions is that is very hard to put in thr provable state. And there is a hugely disingenuous method of saying 'science has been wrong' that just isn't true. Individuals have been wrong. Alchemists, flat earthers, the like, have all been wrong. But transpose those for scientists searching for room temperature super-conductors and things become blurred.

 

There is no law of nature that forbids them but we haven't found one yet. And in ancient times, bronze was seen as amazingly alchemical. Semantics do matter, and context too.

 

But nowhere do 'feelings' and 'belief' enter it, or you are being a philosopher. And more than that, assuming your feeling or belief is any more worthy because it has been touched by an outside force, is both hugely arrogant and ignorant. Only through a mature discussion with humility and a lack of condescension on both sides such as I have had with some believers on here can you begin to define the parameters of the discussion, let alone the proof.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Thor Buttox