Author Topic: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?  (Read 4380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Reputation: +76/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
« Reply #315 on: December 06, 2017, 10:55:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Direction is necessarily relative on a ball: For those on the top, up may be up, but to those on the bottom the top guy's up is the opposite direction for them and therefore, down.  The guy on the side's 'up', is not up to the guy on the top, nor to the guy on the bottom.  
    No: DIRECTION is IN PRINCIPLE a geometrical relationship BETWEEN TWO POINTS. This has nothing to do with any choice of geometry or cosmic model. Heaven is where it is,a nd the Earyh is where it is: but the direction from one to the other is a function of their respective positions.
    But this is a pointless discussion as it's clearly all flying over your head.

    Quote
    There is no top, no bottom, no up, no down, no east, no west, no north, no south, no horizontal and no vertical, on a ball.  Its all relative.  

    Again: define them abolutely. You can't do it, but you're too dense to understand why your attempts at it are inadequte.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2102
    • Reputation: +875/-1274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
    « Reply #316 on: December 06, 2017, 10:58:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No: DIRECTION is IN PRINCIPLE a geometrical relationship BETWEEN TWO POINTS. This has nothing to do with any choice of geometry or cosmic model. Heaven is where it is,a nd the Earyh is where it is: but the direction from one to the other is a function of their respective positions.
    But this is a pointless discussion as it's clearly all flying over your head.

    Again: define them abolutely. You can't do it, but you're too dense to understand why your attempts at it are inadequte.
    I did.  Up is above your head.  Where heaven is.  Down is down, where hell is.  East is east where the sun rises and west is west where the sun sets.  Get off the spinning ball and you'll know which end is up. 


    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
    « Reply #317 on: December 06, 2017, 11:10:52 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Flat earth cannot be rotated arbitrarily in reality.  Up and down cannot be rotated arbitrarily.  Up is up for all people at the same time above their heads, something true only on a flat earth.  Otherwise, up is out, down for some, and totally relative in reality making it 'not up'.  And that is a lie.
    Ye gods, you are a moron.

    Quote
    Flat earth cannot be rotated arbitrarily in reality. 

    You don't get the point of the diagrams I posted or what I'm saying. Your comment is irrelevant to them. The questin is, since you're continually taking terms, viz. geometrical objects, defined in relation to a flat model and projecting them into a spherical model, what are the correct transformations to be employed in this projection? They are arbitrary. We could just as well use eithe rof these:



    Quote
    Up is up for all people at the same time above their heads, something true only on a flat earth.

    When I perform a handstand on a flat Earth, is up still above my head?
    If yes, how is "above" distinct from "up", and how does this then constitute a defintion?
    If not, how does this constitute a definition?

    Quote
    Otherwise, up is out, down for some, and totally relative in reality making it 'not up'.  And that is a lie.

    And this is just a series of non sequiturs. Again you're implicitly projecting a flat model over a spherical model in order to define terms in the spherical model, and its leading you into confusion.

    Offline Kreuzritter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 110
    • Reputation: +76/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
    « Reply #318 on: December 06, 2017, 11:17:50 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I did.  Up is above your head.  Where heaven is.  Down is down, where hell is.  East is east where the sun rises and west is west where the sun sets.  Get off the spinning ball and you'll know which end is up.
    These are all definitions of relationships. :applause:
    Now, to take it further: how are these iconsistent with a spherical model?

    Heaven is still absolute - the region beyond the outermost sphere. Hell is still absolute - the center of the Earth. And "up" and "down" are still defined in relationship to these.
    You only find this impossible to accept because you are implicitly projecting a flast cosmology onto the spherical one. You are not considering the spherical model in itself, but rferring to it in terms of a "meta" model which you have, without justification, assumed to be the flat model.
    You wouldn't pass an undergrad course in formal logic with this kind of egregiously circular thinking.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2190
    • Reputation: +975/-1370
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
    « Reply #319 on: December 06, 2017, 11:37:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2

  • Such arrogance, Kreuzritter. 

    Heaven is "straight up" because we live on a flat plane. Hell is below us. Up is relative to a flat earth. You can make it as complicated as you like, but it's really rather simple. Which may be why you have difficulty grasping it. 


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2102
    • Reputation: +875/-1274
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Did Catholics before the "Reformation" believe in FE?
    « Reply #320 on: December 06, 2017, 12:03:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Ye gods, you are a moron.

    You don't get the point of the diagrams I posted or what I'm saying. Your comment is irrelevant to them. The questin is, since you're continually taking terms, viz. geometrical objects, defined in relation to a flat model and projecting them into a spherical model, what are the correct transformations to be employed in this projection? They are arbitrary. We could just as well use eithe rof these:



    When I perform a handstand on a flat Earth, is up still above my head?
    If yes, how is "above" distinct from "up", and how does this then constitute a defintion?
    If not, how does this constitute a definition?

    And this is just a series of non sequiturs. Again you're implicitly projecting a flat model over a spherical model in order to define terms in the spherical model, and its leading you into confusion.
    Up is up above your head when you don't flip upside down.  It really isn't all that hard.  True is true.  Level is level.  The horizon is horizontal, etc. Unless earth is a ball. Then things get real dishonest. Because up/down/good/bad is whatever you make it, relative to all, even non-existent.  The spherical, spinning, rotating earth is Satan's re-creation of earth in his own image.  And its chaos.  Even a stationary earth ball carries that chaos into the void of ridiculous and leaves everything in doubt.  You don't have to bullwhip me calling me names in order to get your point across.  I just don't buy it because its nonsense.   

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16