I agree - the Church doesn't have to define everything. And until the Church does define the shape of the earth, we are free to debate the subject. Somehow I doubt that there will be any forthcoming definition in our lifetimes. After all, the Church is occupied by Modernists. And they probably hold to a NASA interpretation of the shape of the earth.

Absolutely, you are free to debate it and I really have no problem with it. Frankly, I have no problem with accepting the idea of a FE, but there are so many seemingly insurmountable problems that have to be addressed and overcome. This is why I keep insisting that you need a model. The model needs to demonstrate how the sun rises and sets among many other things. 

BTW: It’s nice, for a change, not to be confrontational in a discussion with you. 😀

Well said! For some reason, the subject of the shape of the earth, and defending one's position on it, can cause a lot of contention. I used to sometimes get upset about it too. Those who believe that they must denigrate FE because it makes trads look stupid is not a good way to go about defending the ball earth, but it's also not a teaching of the Church that the earth is flat. So we are free to debate the subject, even though one or two here may not agree with that.

I can understand why some here believe in a ball earth. It's what we were all conditioned to believe, and the pattern of the sun's movement appears to fit the ball earth model better than it does on a flat earth. But that in itself does not prove a ball earth, IMO.

You mention above, EWPJ, that the formula of 8 inches per mile squared isn't a correct calculation, and I agree, since I believe in a flat earth, but can you perhaps explain or say more about this, and why you believe that this is the case, even though you don't understand the math? We don't have a good working model of a flat plane earth, but I don't think that we need one, and I can understand that some here disagree with that stand.

Oh yeah.  Here's a link by a geometric physicist or some such title that talks about it and the comment section has people challenging it and his rebuttals, etc.  Could the guy ultimately be wrong? Possibly but I don't think he is but then again I'm not a math whiz and I'd welcome a solid rebuttal of his and better explanation of the maths and such about how FE'ers come up with 8 in. per mile squared. 

https://chizzlewit.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/working-with-the-curvaure-of-a-spherical-earth/

I just finished watching two debates on FE vs GE. The first was “Professor Dave” vs “Flat Earth Dave” and the Second was “Professor Dave” vs Austin Witsit.


Both debates contained some bad language, so I’m not going to post the links, but they’re easy to find on YouTube. Professor Dave is possibly the most obnoxious and arrogant person I’ve ever seen debate. I found myself almost rooting for the FEer in both debates. Unfortunately for the two FEers, especially “Flat Earth Dave”, they were totally destroyed.

The best FE argument, as I’ve said in the past, are the photos of distant objects supposedly showing mountains that, if believable, shouldn’t be visible on a global Earth. If they are in fact real photos, it’s possible that refraction or some other phenomena might be responsible for it, but this is the only thing about the FE theory that gives me pause. Anyway, neither “FED” nor “AW” could refute the overwhelming evidence supporting the GE model. “PD” blew them away when he asked them to explain why stars rotated counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. “AW” was asked this question multiple times and was reticent or tried to obfuscate his way out of the question. Unless and until FEers find a reasonable answer for this, aside from the many other holes in the theory, this alone makes the theory a nonstarter.

One other thing that was interesting about the second debate, was that “PD” prefaced his remarks by saying that “AW” was going to try to confuse the issue by conflating the geocentric theory with FE, which he absolutely tried to do. “PD” even admitting that the geocentric system does actually work! As I’ve said in the past, I believe this explosion of pushing the FE theory for the past 10 years is working to cover up the resurgence of the geocentric theory.


Funny thing. I just realized that I’ve watched much more FE stuff than I have of FE debunkers. This is probably why I never really thought about the movement of the stars as a proof of GE.

I watched some of the Farina vs DITRH debate but DITRH's "lithp" and effeminate voice got on my nerves so much I had to check out although some FE'ers admitted and said that DITRH did terrible and did not represent FE very well.  I did watch the Farina vs Whitsit debate and thought Whitsit did a solid job and won the debate, not by a landslide by any means, but if one is being objective he made the most arguments that Farina couldn't refute and Farina just kept obfuscating and not answering a lot of Whitsit's questions by using childhood tantrum antics.  

That being said, I agree Farina is annoying but he made a couple good arguments but to be fair Whitsit tried to answer some of those but was basically cut off by the mod and Farina quite a bit where it wasn't completely fair.  The whole debate needed a rigid timed format where no one could interrupt the other and a better format.  The mod was terrible and biased.  Whitsit does answer a lot of objections in his debate review video if you care to look at that.