We don't know that there is an edge.  There's only speculation about what if anything would be beyond Antarctica.  If there were an edge, it could simply be the edge of creation.  What happens when you get to the edge of the universe?

It's important to separate the theoretical model (most of which is speculative, since FE don't have the resources or access to properly investigate) from the known facts.  Regardless of the answer to what's beyond Antarctica, the evidence makes it very clear that the surface of the earth that we live on is flat.  Otherwise, we should not be able to see the things that we have seen.  There's a record long-distance photograph that I believe was taken from about 300 miles away or something (I'll try to dig up the details), where the target object should have been hidden by MILES of curvature.  It was of a lighthouse on a small rocky island that was no more than 200 feet above sea level at its peak.  That the light could "refract" perfectly over 100s of miles at a consistent rate as to follow the curvature of the globe, while mysteriously erasing the earth "bulge" that would be between the photographer and the object ... I find that utterly absurd.

On the FE map there's usually our world surrounded by ice wall. But given the technology we have today wouldn't it be easy to get all the way there to see if there's that ice wall all the way around the world? Or even fly over the ice wall with planes or balloons? Or drill through the walls? And what happens to the north pole on FE? Doesn't it exist even? 

99% flat surface with domed firmament

I've tried to take the "devil's advocate" side and demonstrate to myself that the earth is a globe.  I do this all the time with various issues.  I perform a thought experiment where I believe that the earth is a globe and I'm debating a flat earther.  What's my proof/evidence?  NASA photos.  So much fakery with NASA that it can't be used.  Eratosthenes' sticks?  Depends on how far away the sun is.  Radio waves moving around the earth?  We have no idea what they could be bouncing off of.  Firmament?  Something else?  After all, they claim that radio waves can bounce off the ionosphere.  I urge you to do the same thing, DL.  If you believed earth is a globe, what would your evidence be.  It would be cool to have a thread where people leaning flat earth would present their best evidence in favor of globe earth.

I can't buy the explanation for the "see too far" phenomenon as "refraction", especially in light of the two-way experiments that have been performed, the clarify of objects seen too far, etc.  Results are simply too consistent and too clear for me to be able to convincingly apply the deus ex machina explanation of refraction.  Besides, refraction is not a proof of globe earth, just a counter to flat earth that's convenient.  But has anyone done the math to positively prove that refraction is taking place?  Never.  They just pull it out like a rabbit from a hat, and they simply pull out a word or a concept.

Someone ran the numbers on the world's faster jet, that it would have to nose-down an astonishing amount every second of flight, like nearly 1,000 feet (can't recall the exact numbers), but it would have to be at a perfectly constant rate to avoid fluctuations in altitude up or down.

I leave the 1% there because it's theoretically possible that all the experiments performed have ben faked, but I find it highly unlikely, or because another theoretically-possible explanation is that we live on a globe that's MUCH larger in circuмference/diameter than science claims.

And the notion that a pressurized atmosphere can exist without a container and adjacent to a nearly perfect vacuum I find utterly absurd.  Gravity cannot explain the phenomenon.

There are simply too many problems with globe earth that I can offer no convincing explanation for.

Stationary earth, 100%.

I also thought about this, maybe it's just that their measurement of the curvature is wrong or they're hiding the fact that we have a much bigger globe. But then it wouldn't make sense because if it's actually much bigger then the global flights will be all messed up based on the current calculation. 

The north pole doesn't change.

As for the ice wall, people have attempted to navigate to it either by plane or boat, but are turned back by military ships and aircraft and threatened by force.

I think I misunderstood because I was looking at maps without labels. This one I found makes more sense. So north pole is like the center of the earth? And Antarctica, instead of being a little point like the north pole, is the whole brim of the earth and miles of ice outside?

Yep. Basically what I and others have been asserting. Flat plane within a globular Firmament still constitutes a "globe". The modern notion of a globe is based on Pythagorean, Copernican and Kelperian notions of the earth in their Heliocentric universe.

Yes, and that's why I object when people post lists of "Globe Earthers" that include St. Hildegard.  I believe that it was cassini who first posted the above passage about St. Hildegard, but it's RIGHT THERE in the passage he posted as evidence for globe earth that St. Hildegard believed that the bottom of said "globe" was uninhabitable due to the Great Deep and entrance to Sheol ... which is basically the FE dome model and not the spherical globe model this was claimed to be evidence for.

This also makes it evident that further research is needed on the Fathers and others saints who are adduced as proponents of globe.  Simply because they used the term "globe" does not mean they were Globe Earthers in the modern sense of the word.

I'm suspicious that it has more to do with translation choices than what is actually meant. Such as gyrum/gyrus meaning circle but being translated as globe in post-Galilean English translations.

But there's also some Fathers who were influenced by the Aristotelian model of a spherical earth.

Translation is certainly a problem, as well as possible problems misreading things as Ladislaus mentioned.  I've watched Catholic priests use this quote below to assure us that historically speaking, the church always knew earth was a globe:

“Resuming  then,  let  us  first  lay  bare,  in  speaking of  those  things  according  to  our  power,  the imposture  of  those  who  boast  as  though  they  alone  had  comprehended  from  what  forms  the  heaven  is arranged,  in  accordance  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Egyptians.  For they  say  that  the circuмference  of  the  world  is  likened  to  the  turnings  of  a  well‐rounded  globe,  the  earth  having  a central  point.  For  its  outline  being  spherical,  it  is  necessary,  *they*  say,  since  there  are  the  same  distances of  the  parts,  that  the  earth  should  be  the  center  of  the  universe,  around  which  as  being  older,  the  heaven is  whirling.  For  if  a  circuмference  is  described  from  the  central  point,  which  seems  to  be  a  circle,  ‐  for  it is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  described  without  a  point,  and  it  is  impossible  for  a  circle  to  be  without  a point,  ‐  surely  the  earth  consisted  before  all,  they  say,  in  a  state  of  chaos  and  disorganization.  Now certainly  the  wretched  ones  were  overwhelmed  in  the  chaos  of  error,  “because  that,  when  they  knew  God, they  glorified  Him  not  as  God--Methodius:

Now, any fair minded person reading this quote, who wasn't suffering confirmation bias, would see that Methodius is saying "they", (his opponents) say "the circuмference of the world is likened to the turnings of a well-rounded globe".  Methodius actually calls them wretched for it, in the quote! But because the word globe is used in the passage, some guys think they have proof the Fathers taught that earth is a globe.  

hmmm

... a perfect sphere. That's a message in and of itself. When Pope Benedict asked Giotto for a drawing to prove his worth as an artist, Giotto drew a perfect circle ... freehand. Perfection. It's a powerful message." A perfect circle in 3-D, which is the ubiquitous nature of space and geometry, becomes a sphere. The sphere relates perfectly to being and becoming in the cosmos, which itself is like precipitation, which is spherical again. Creation was made or brought into being and God still is also the rainmaker in Heaven, which means creation was somewhat precipitated from a cloud, the cloud being the glory of God and so forth.

I just saw a picture of a perfect rainbow, where you could see both ends touch the ground.  It reminded me of a perfect dome shape and made me think that it's another reminder of the snow-globe shape of the earth.  If the earth was a ball/globe shape, then how would rainbows work?