Author Topic: Dr. John D destroys the Globe (Read 6379 times)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #15 on:** July 20, 2022, 04:10:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 20, 2022, 04:02:35 PM

You're continuing to press the false strawman caricature of FE that it's a flat disk revolving around the sun.

Indeed. We need to break down the false cosmology of modern Scientism and realize that the earth IS the universe and the universe IS the earth. There are no other worlds "out there" because the only "out there" is Heaven above and Hell below.

Donachie · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2022, 04:11:33 PM »

I don't think the Earth revolves around the Sun. I think it's not moving and the Sun revolves around it.

Aristotle (De Coelo) says, "body (soma in Greek, by which he means 3-D space) alone among magnitudes can be complete. For it alone is determined by three dimensions, that is, is in 'all'." From this, one can surmise that it's fair to say that space, as in pure space, is always 3-D and complete.

So whether the Earth is "flat" or not, it is in 3-D space, as is the rest of the cosmos. For it to be flat like a pancake in space, which is spherical itself, does not look right or add up correctly for the calendar or navigation. Every great meridian intersects the equator at two distinct opposite points in 3-D space, so there are at least two perpendicular circles involved in the composition of the Earth, which shows that it's spherical.

St. Bonaventure thought the sphere was the most noble form in geometry, and the Earth should be as dignified in its creation as Bonaventure would prefer, etc.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2022, 04:16:09 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 20, 2022, 04:11:33 PM

I don't think the Earth revolves around the Sun. I think it's not moving and the Sun revolves around it.

Aristotle (De Coelo) says, "body (soma in Greek, by which he means 3-D space) alone among magnitudes can be complete. For it alone is determined by three dimensions, that is, is in 'all'." From this, one can surmise that it's fair to say that space, as in pure space, is always 3-D and complete.

So whether the Earth is "flat" or not, it is in 3-D space, as is the rest of the cosmos. For it to be flat like a pancake in space, which is spherical itself, does not look right or add up correctly for the calendar or navigation. Every great meridian intersects the equator at two distinct opposite points in 3-D space, so there are at least two perpendicular circles involved in the composition of the Earth, which shows that it's spherical.

St. Bonaventure thought the sphere was the most noble form in geometry, and the Earth should be as dignified in its creation as Bonaventure would prefer, etc.

Again, you're resting upon the presuppositions of modern cosmology that there is, in-fact, a "space" in which the earth-plane resides. I am saying that there isn't such a thing. There are the waters above and the waters below encapsulating what constitutes the earth. And beyond that is Heaven and the Realm of God. Not "infinite" space (a blasphemous idea, as only God is infinite).

Second, the earth could be a flat-plane within the sphere of the Firmament. It doesn't have to be some flat disc floating in the ether. And also, as much as I esteem St. Bonaventure, that's his opinion based upon the presuppositions and assumptions of Aristotle. What he says about the sphere is true, but it doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth.

Donachie · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2022, 04:31:14 PM »

Space is a universal and immediate necessity for creation, since creation is finite. We have sufficient proof that finity or the finite exists, and then with logic we are able to further infer that there is also the infinite, which is quite different. So then we are to figure the relation between the two, the finite and the infinite.

The finite has sides, straight lines, curves, and divisions, whereas the infinite does not, but since it does have a relation to the finite it doe have a relation to these created things. Certain things from the finite would represent a relation to the infinite better than others. For instance, straight lines have an end and a beginning, and do not represent relation to the infinite as well as a circle, which does not have a beginning or ending, since the infinite is like a circle in that it does not have a beginning or ending.

So the Earth is at least a circle, and any circle that is also complete in 3-D becomes a sphere. Aristotle describes the very formation of the Earth as a spherical process, which I think reflects the Holy Trinity, which is also "3-D", yet in a very supernatural way. Therefore, I say that a flat Earth does less honor to the very sublime and supernatural nature of the Most Holy Trinity who are one in three ... even like a sphere.

Cera · « **Reply #19 on:** July 20, 2022, 05:28:44 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 20, 2022, 02:30:03 PM

Do you reckon that the Moon is a sphere but the Earth is not?

You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2022, 05:55:46 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 20, 2022, 04:31:14 PM

Space is a universal and immediate necessity for creation, since creation is finite. We have sufficient proof that finity or the finite exists, and then with logic we are able to further infer that there is also the infinite, which is quite different. So then we are to figure the relation between the two, the finite and the infinite.

The finite has sides, straight lines, curves, and divisions, whereas the infinite does not, but since it does have a relation to the finite it doe have a relation to these created things. Certain things from the finite would represent a relation to the infinite better than others. For instance, straight lines have an end and a beginning, and do not represent relation to the infinite as well as a circle, which does not have a beginning or ending, since the infinite is like a circle in that it does not have a beginning or ending.

So the Earth is at least a circle, and any circle that is also complete in 3-D becomes a sphere. Aristotle describes the very formation of the Earth as a spherical process, which I think reflects the Holy Trinity, which is also "3-D", yet in a very supernatural way. Therefore, I say that a flat Earth does less honor to the very sublime and supernatural nature of the Most Holy Trinity who are one in three ... even like a sphere.

That's all well and good. But the argument here is not that things aren't in three dimensions. That is a given fact. The argument is whether or not there is an expanse beyond the confines of the Firmament and the "waters above" (Gen. 1:7-8) You need to stop thinking of the FE conception of earth as this:

And start thinking of it more like this:

The Infinite exists in the latter model. It is God, and the finite is His creation. To state that there is an infinite creature is, again, preposterous and blasphemous.

Secondly, there is no denying that there is such a thing as a mathematical conception of the infinite. But, that doesn't mean anything in this regard as it is empirically unproven. You can "prove" a great many things through mathematical (e.g. geometrical) reasoning that don't actually exist in reality.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2022, 06:17:15 PM »

Quote from: Cera on July 20, 2022, 05:28:44 PM

You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)

Indeed, this (made up) notion that the reason we only see one side of the moon is because rotates EXACTLY (to the second) one time for every revolution around the earth. If it were even a second off each day, then over the years, decades, and centuries, the "face" that we see would have changed. Also, scientists claim that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth. In that case, it would have to speed up both its rotation and its revolution in order to keep this up. I find this utterly absurd.

Of course, the reason we have eclipses is because the sun is exactly 400x father away AND at the same time exactly 400x larger than the moon.

St Giles · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2022, 08:54:22 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 20, 2022, 05:55:46 PM

You can "prove" a great many things through mathematical (e.g. geometrical) reasoning that don't actually exist in reality.

Are you saying, for example, that we can observe the stars and galaxies, and how the planets are spinning globes with orbiting moons, and be wrong to assume that the earth shares such similar properties? I don't think the flat earth model does God's infiniteness any justice compared to the globe earth model, but I could see it doing justice to His almighty power to order things in a way that seems to defy the logic, math, and observable universe that we know. I would consider it a miracle for the sun to hover in a circular path over the flat earth with the moon, changing its position with the seasons.

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 20, 2022, 06:17:15 PM

Indeed, this (made up) notion that the reason we only see one side of the moon is because rotates EXACTLY (to the second) one time for every revolution around the earth. If it were even a second off each day, then over the years, decades, and centuries, the "face" that we see would have changed. Also, scientists claim that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth. In that case, it would have to speed up both its rotation and its revolution in order to keep this up. I find this utterly absurd.

Of course, the reason we have eclipses is because the sun is exactly 400x father away AND at the same time exactly 400x larger than the moon.

That is a good argument, but with what we know of the complexities found in nature, and even the strange coincidences, there may be something going on that we don't easily understand as being practically possible, or it is just another sign of an intelligent creator. A moon that spins may have negatively affected negatively the way ancient people thought of the world. I don't know God's reason for it. If it spun, there would be no continuous face (man in the moon) appearance.

Do flat earthers agree that the moon causes the tides? Can't then the earth, which is much greater, cause tides on the moon? If the moon flexed by the pull of earth's gravity, it would cause a sort of friction that could slow the rotation of the moon eventually stopping it. Still, you would think that even now the orbit of the moon causing tides would change the rotational speed of the globe earth. But consider how the earth is much larger and more massive. That larger diameter combined with more mass greatly increases the torque and energy required to change the earth's speed. It is simple rotational kinetic energy math that will show the easily exponential growth of energy storage with an increase in diameter and mass.

Also keep in mind how long mankind has existed on earth. I don't know how long creation took: was it days literally or ages? Either way, we haven't been around that long, so it is possible the moon at one time rotated, and will again begin to rotate in the distant future. It can take a while to get big things moving again.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 20, 2022, 09:21:24 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on July 20, 2022, 08:54:22 PM

Do flat earthers agree that the moon causes the tides?

No. That's debated even among mainstream scientists. Newton, who invented the theory, ended up rejecting it, saying that he was extremely dissatisfied with the theory.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #24 on:** July 20, 2022, 09:27:30 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on July 20, 2022, 08:54:22 PM

Are you saying, for example, that we can observe the stars and galaxies, and how the planets are spinning globes with orbiting moons, and be wrong to assume that the earth shares such similar properties?

God specifically ordained that they have a function and a purpose, which is not necessarily shared with the earth itself. It's like I mentioned earlier about the lightbulb and the floor. Just because some stellar object in God's creation possesses certain properties, does not mean the earth possesses the same.

Quote

Who established the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. Who made the great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever. The sun to rule over the day: for his mercy endureth for ever. The moon and the stars to rule the night: for his mercy endureth for ever. [Ps. 135:6-9]

And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. [17] And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. [18] And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [Gen. 1:13-18]

Note how he doesn't say worlds, or planets, but lights for the purpose of time-keeping, the seasons, etc.

Quote

I don't think the flat earth model does God's infiniteness any justice compared to the globe earth model, but I could see it doing justice to His almighty power to order things in a way that seems to defy the logic, math, and observable universe that we know.

I would argue it does a tremendous justice to God's infinitude because it shows that the creature is finite in light of the Creator.
The funny thing about defying logic is that it actually affirms logic in God's creation to have a flat plane. The world we stand upon appears flat, because it most likely is flat. It's a simpler explanation, and therefore, more logical, than to say that we are on a spinning globe hurdling through space (as moderns claim).
In a FE we have a definitive direction for up, and down; rather than the illogical assertion that there is no true up or true down; or that water can curve around a spherical object; or that there's some mysterious "force" or "curving of space-time" that strongly affixes some objects to a surface, but fails to affix some weaker objects, etc.

Quote

I would consider it a miracle for the sun to hover in a circular path over the flat earth with the moon, changing its position with the seasons.

And not to deflect from the topic here, but since you mention miracles, I've pointed out that previously that, in a way, the miracle of the Sun in Fatima implicitly affirms the notion that the Sun is a local body that moves through the sky; rather than a massive object millions of times the size of our world, millions of miles away. It's an interesting thought, especially since it precedes the deception of NASA to follow only a few decades after the fact.
And the same can be said about the miracle of Josue where he prayed to stop the Sun. (Josue 10)

Donachie · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2022, 12:30:20 AM »

Quote from: Cera on July 20, 2022, 05:28:44 PM

You raise an interesting question. If the Moon were a sphere, why do we see only one side of it? Does that seem logical to you? (I predict that you will go to your pal Google to assist with your "response" instead of using your own brain.)

You're projecting, which is not quite necessary, but I think that the Moon is a complete sphere. There are librations of the Moon that add to the evidence that it's a sphere. It has a spherical appearance to me and to just about everybody else. I'd say its sphericity is evidently true and universally acknowledged.

It does not rotate is why one side is seen from Earth. The Earth is spherical too and does not rotate either.

If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2022, 11:51:37 AM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 21, 2022, 12:30:20 AM

You're projecting, which is not quite necessary, but I think that the Moon is a complete sphere. There are librations of the Moon that add to the evidence that it's a sphere. It has a spherical appearance to me and to just about everybody else. I'd say its sphericity is evidently true and universally acknowledged.

It does not rotate is why one side is seen from Earth. The Earth is spherical too and does not rotate either.

If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.

This channel has some peculiar, but very interesting, theories about the moon

Cera · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2022, 12:49:47 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 21, 2022, 12:30:20 AM

If you consider nature and sides, having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too. That would be most natural. So not having seen the other side, I assume that the other side is as spherical and similar to the side we see. If one has half an orange and the other is missing, he can assume that the missing half was similar. It would be unnatural for oranges and objects like the Moon or Earth or Jupiter to be in odd halves.

I respect that you are geocentric; sorry I missed that.

You say "having seen one side, one could consider that the other side is similar to it, and fully spherical too." On the other hand, having seen one side we cannot tell if it is a sphere or not. Although it goes against millenia of Egyptian/Freemasonic programming, it could be flat or it could be a sphere.

I make no assumption about the supposed "other side." It may be flat or it may be a sphere. Our unstated basic assumptions will cause us to lean toward either flat or sphere.

Somtimes we have to overcome our unstated basic assumptions about the world in which we live, considering the many lies we've been told. You know that because you are not heliocentric.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2022, 05:35:08 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 21, 2022, 11:51:37 AM

This channel has some peculiar, but very interesting, theories about the moon

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2022, 06:06:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 21, 2022, 05:35:08 PM

Transparent, or, perhaps the stars are actually far smaller than the moon and are passing in front of it?

Author Topic: Dr. John D destroys the Globe (Read 6379 times)

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Donachie

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Donachie

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Cera

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

St Giles

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Donachie

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Cera

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe