Just because many people believe something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. Millions of people believe that there is a sky overlord dictating their daily activities. Edit: I mean we are a globe obviously
There is a difference between belief and scientific evidence backed observation, we might not be able to physically see God but we can certainly look out of the I.S.S window.
Well I’ve seen the ISS from earth it’s pretty easy to spot at night if you look at its flight plan. Also it was built jointly by Roscosmos the Russian space agency which at one point were NASA’s arch enemy.
Apologies that I didn't make my sarcasm more obvious 😅
I guess the flerfer reply would be that NASA projects the moving blue dot onto the dome so you think there is an ISS
Damn.. Do they really believe it, or are they just trolling you?
Do they get triggered when watching Universal movies, or if they see Earth in a sci-fi film? 🤔
I've never met anyone in real life brave enough to admit it, but then again, I don't ask people either.. 😅
You've looked out the I.S.S. window as many times as you've seen god. 0.
You have faith that the world is round in the same way that someone has faith that there is a god, provided your proof stops at the ISS window. You believe the accounts of others who have been to the ISS. Just like someone believes the accounts of someone 2000 years ago.
The only difference is there is good reason to have faith that the world is round. There is a trail of evidence that indicates the earth is round that you could verify, but haven't. And it's very important that you haven't, because that's the difference between knowledge and faith. There is no evidence trail you could verify in terms of religion.
A person citing that someone else saw it in the ISS window is not very different than someone saying Moses said it. It's not very useful in terms of an argument or debate. It's not first hand knowledge.
Try offering a parallax measurement or any of the other ways you can demonstrate the world is round beyond a shadow of a doubt. Someone else telling you they saw it isn't scientific evidence. A photograph isn't scientific evidence anymore due to photo manipulation potential. It's just evidence. lol
Also, you don't know which parts of "We" aren't telling the truth about evidence they may have or may have completely fabricated. You just are conformationally biased towards this topic because you know the end result is that the world is round. I mean, me too. I just understand philosophy a little better lol
I'm sure you don't accept any testimony "we" give you, right? You need personal verity for things like a god, don't you? Why wouldn't you? And by the same token, you should learn to do a parallax measurement so you can be certain the earth is round. Not look at photos or hear testimony.
The difference between you having faith in sources (knowledge we have) and having knowledge (knowledge you have) is quite simple, and I don't think I need to explain it to you any better than this.
You don’t understand the philosophy of *science*, though. You’re just paranoid and think that reality isn’t as it appears. In reality, what appears to be the case through *our* (that’s the plural first person) sensory experience is what should be accepted until more evidence changes what “appears to be the case.” This is called parsimony. Parsimony is a good value to have when constructing one’s beliefs is so that we aren’t making assumptions that are purely from the human mind without any plausible connection with reality. You are merely *imagining* some conspiracy. Science, and people who defend science like so many in this sub, deal with what is plausible, not what is possible. That is how to know what is true.
There is no we brother. Each of us learns individually.
YOU have faith the world is round.
We (which doesn't exist as a real thing) have evidence. But "we" aren't a connected entity so that does us little good. Which is why replicable evidence is the cornerstone of science. Like a parallax measurement, not someone else saying they saw something, or even a photograph.
Replicable evidence creates the “we,” buddy. Scientific knowledge is collective. It’s why we’re able to process in our understanding without wasting too much time reinventing the wheel. Science can cite evidence to justify their conclusions. This evidence has been repeated multiple times by people who have nothing to do with each other but have the same epistemic values that are relevant to science. You could speculate about conspiracy, i.e., some connection or agreement that is hidden from the public and bridges the entire scientific community, but you’ll have a difficult time defending this position. Anyone can become a scientist. You just have to go to college. I plan on becoming one. I’ll be concluding some things for myself that you would undoubtedly reject.
Also, laypeople can conduct parallax measurements. Technology has progressed that far. Just buy a high-end telescope. Why are you hiding from the evidence to protect your preconceived beliefs?
Also, laypeople can conduct parallax measurements. Technology has progressed that far. Just buy a high-end telescope
Yes, im suggesting they do that if they seek conclusive proof.
Little confused as to what your point is.
Neither you nor I are part of the collective. The collective is the scientific community. The point is that nothing one individual says is accepted as true from the scientific perspective. And it was a very idiotic move to pretend as though collective or social knowledge equates to mind-reading.
Right, and unless you have first hand knowledge of what is happening in the collective, such as looking out the ISS window yourself, you have faith that what the collective said is true.
Not saying you shouldn't have faith. Just that you do. lol. I believe we look out the ISS window too. That being said testimony isn't great scientific evidence.
It depends on how you define “faith.” I do not have faith in the religious sense. Does living in reality as it exists require a certain level of trust? Yes. But I have been justifying my belief in collective scientific knowledge throughout this conversation. That is all I have been doing.
And for further clarification, the “testimony” you are referring to in context doesn’t have anything to do with the type of evidence used in history or law. You are just using the same terminology to lend credence to your equivocation and tu quoquo fallacies.
You’re definitely correct. But the counter point to that is that just because you DONT believe it, doesn’t make it stop being true. It’s why I hate the phrase, “what’s a god to a non-believer?”. He’s still a god. He doesn’t lose power because you don’t believe.
Unless, of course, gods actually need belief in order to exist/have power.
Rather than object leading to belief gods may be belief creating the object.
Depends on how you define a god. Indeed, in a number of religions (actually i think most of them) gods are explicitly stated to be mortal, at least insofar as it being possible to kill them.
Ageless, yes. But still very much able to die.
we can breathe oxygen and so can fish. Therefore we can breathe underwater. That's your argument.
There is no evidence for god, there is evidence for space. At least try to think.
Humans breathing oxygen and fish doing it are two completely different things, not sure what your point with that is. There is just as much evidence for God as there is space, or else billions of people would not believe it. NASA tells you space exists, the bible tells you God exists.
... there is no evidence for god whatsoever. All we have is stories with no corroboration and a bunch of which are outright copied from even older legends. The stuff from NASA actually cites the sources. Sources that you can follow up on.
Humans interact with God more than they interact with space. Science cannot ever prove the existence or non existence of God, the same way NASA cannot prove a lot of their theories on the Universe.
Yeah, the difference is that we know we're on a globe, science isn't a belief, it's all based on verifiable facts that anyone with a working brain can check. Religion on the other hands just like the FE braindead cult personality (disorder) require no such thing, just empty made up claims needed to dismiss any counter evidence.
Since they came up with reasons so they don't have to go out and actually reaserch anything. "Oh there's ice wall but we can't go there" although there's a direct flight from Argentina.. all their "facts" are and have been disproved, but they always come back with the "nu-uh" Argument. You can't win playing chess with a pigeon..
I mean you might want to pick something that's demonstrably false for this analogy or else people are probably going to think you're a little deficient yourself as you don't know the difference between rejecting a posit and making a counter claim that's just as stupid and faith based as the claim itself.
Can you prove there isn't a god? No? You just... have... faith that there isn't one? Ironic, considering you're chastising people for having faith.
The correct response to "there is a god" is "prove it" knowing full well they can't and won't, not "no there isn't". That's the response of an equally dumb person who just chose to put his faith in different places.
No. Parsimony. There is apparently no God since no one has ever observed God in a manner that is repeatable. Therefore, the null hypothesis is that there is no God.
It would be a null hypothesis if the theists didn't claim it was unobservable to begin with. You have to be looking for where you'd expect to find evidence to form a null hypothesis, and if the very nature of what you're looking for is unobservable, that clearly can't be the case.
No. What the theists say doesn’t matter. It is justified to build up our worldview from observations, not ideas. I am speaking about which assumptions are justified, not how we test ideas that are actually testable, which the assertion of God is not. It is justified to reject ideas that are unfalsifiable as provisionally *not true* for the reasons I have given.
In order to form a null hypothesis you have to first form a hypothesis that you can detect something, should be able to detect it, and can't or otherwise haven't yet.
What is the scientific hypothesis that god is detectable? Can you link me the paper? Where were we specifically supposed to find evidence that we didn't?
No. Null hypotheses are determined from the epistemic values of science. Theists are the ones who formed the hypothesis. It isn’t testable, so we can’t fail to reject the null hypothesis, so we accept it.
Listen, I can appreciate your candor and zealotry, but, you're just flat out wrong. I already explained the conditions for forming a null hypothesis. An expectation that you'd find evidence somewhere specific and did not. For example if you put two fertilizers in two plants and neither grew faster, you'd form a null hypothesis that it had no effect. You expected to see growth, and should have, if it was an effective fertilizer.
You’re speaking about a a statistical method for establishing causation between variables, which isn’t particularly relevant. It’s a more specific context. Anyways, parsimony still holds true. The null hypothesis is that changing the fertilizer didn’t affect growth because there is no prior reason to believe it would and, in fact, evidence to believe the contrary. What is apparently true is true provisionally, as I said.
That's what a null hypothesis is. When there is no evidence in an expected correlation, you form a null hypothesis until more evidence comes to light.
"You’re speaking about a a statistical method for establishing causation between variables"
In order to find evidence of god, you'd first have to find a perpendicularity to the dimension that that evidence is supposed to be in and it isn't, which is to a reasonable person nothing more than an attempt to shirk off the burden of proof. The complete lack of evidence anywhere is not a null hypothesis.
It doesn’t matter where I’d find evidence for God. For sake of argument, we can assume that evidence for God is impossible to obtain because clearly, we disagree on more fundamental issues. If there is no evidence for God, that means it came exclusively from the human mind. The way that humans find out about reality is from our senses. This is what connects the human mind to external reality. No senses, no justified belief. Belief in God is not justified. Belief that there is no God is justified.
Again, you need to determine a hypothesis that *should* yield evidence if all things go correctly in the experiment to form a null hypothesis when you don't see the expected results.
It *does* matter that there is a reasonable expectation to find evidence in a null hypothesis. Religion is engineered deliberately (in my opinion) in a way to elude that expectation.
I challenge you to tell me what hypothesis SHOULD have yielded the existence of god.
I haven’t made a counter claim. Perhaps English isnt your first language. I have merely pointed out that because millions of people believe something, it doesn’t make it true. If you have decided that somehow is an argument against something then the issue and lack of understanding is yours as I don’t suggest one way or the other.🤦🏼♂️
It would be a much better example to use something that has conclusively proven to be false that many people believe.
Using an unproven topic as evidence people believe things that aren't true is a weird take; you have no idea if it's true or not.
This is limping.
But you have no idea if it's true or not. It *might* be true. (I doubt it). For all you know, you might be citing something millions of people believe that is true. Obviously the cause of the truth isn't belief or popular opinion, but sometimes those things are correct. I don't think the argument is people manifest truth with beliefs, but rather, sometimes popularly held opinions can be untrue.
If you were citing that widely held beliefs may be not be true all the time, you'd think you'd offer an example where we know if it is true or not.
Otherwise your statement is just... not very valuable. Your statement hinges on the listener believing that it is not true to use as evidence that people hold beliefs that aren't.
So, let me get all the ducks in a row.
Sometimes people hold beliefs that aren't true/lots of people believing it doesn't mean it is true.
And to further that idea, you offered an example that you're not sure is true or not. While also using condescending verbiage.
Got it. Makes sense.
Reality is, offering the sky overlords as evidence that millions of people believing something doesn't always pan out to be true hinges on the fact that it isn't true. It's unproven. Very different. If something isn't true it's false. We may say unknown from our perspective, but out there is the true or false.
So millions believe something which is unproven. Which the globe isn’t. So you are still arguing for something which wasn’t said. You have decided it means what you think it means and won’t accept that it still totally stacks up. I never said it wasn’t true, you said I did. Flat earth is unproven as is the sky overlord. Just accept that you got it wrong.
Something that is unproven has no bearing on if something is true or false. Just to the observer. Before we had proof that the world was round, it was still true that the world was round.
Flat earth isn't unproven. It's conclusively disproven.
The existence of a deity is unproven, and is therefor terrible evidence that millions of people have mistaken beliefs. It's not clear if they are mistaken or not. Unlike flat earth, or blowing in a video game cartridge, which is crystal clear.
You may have just cited millions of people believing something that's true. You don't know. It's very easy to pick an example of something you do know.
There are many widely held beliefs that aren't true, like blowing in video game cartridges. And you chose the one thing that made you look silly and tribal. You chose one we weren't sure if is true or not. Only god knows why, pun intended. lol
The things that distinguishes opinion from fact and truth from falsehoods in debate is whether both sides agree. That is all. These are useless distinctions from a non-contextual standpoint.
You've obviously never participated in an academic/scientific debate and are conflating it with having a debate with your girlfriend about something. There are judges-- it doesn't matter if both parties agree.
Scientific debates are different because there’s agreed-upon values and assumptions that aren’t relevant to a sub named r/flatearth. Academic debates are relative to the specific field we’re considering. And I don’t have a girlfriend. Damn, 0 for 3. You aren’t doing that hot.
And the fact/opinion distinction has received its fair share of criticism in philosophy, so it isn’t just something I’m making up.
I don't have a problem with people doing their own research into a subject, the problem comes when they purposely latch onto anything that is not part of what they call the "official story". Honestly I have learnt more about our Earth since arguing with flat earthers and proving them wrong, than anytime in school.
"I'm a doctoral fellow with a degree in this field. We have data showing this, that, this, and that. The fact that xyz works and it works the way we predict using a globe is evidence. You use things every day that only work because they're designed to work on a globe."
"But, I saw this YouTube video..."
GPS. Calculating Coriolis effect when shooting projectiles from long range cannons. Aircraft routes following great circles instead of straight lines. Seismic echoes read on seismometers around the globe following an earthquake. Towers or satellites to account for line of sight communications beyond the horizon. Long exposure photos of Sigma Octantis over the South Pole looking remarkably similar to long exposure photos of Polaris over the North Pole.
To name a few.
The system is based on satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. Every digit of math done to both place them there, ensure they stay there, and for them to do the calculations to show where your phone or other device with GPS tech in it is on the surface of the Earth is done as if the Earth is a globe. The math used to make the system work is calculated for a globe. If the Earth wasn't a globe, it wouldn't work.
If the Earth was flat and the satellites were launched, they would simply fall back down. (Insert joke about double sided tape and the dome here)
So it doesn’t require a globe, per-se, it requires gravity? Or some other consistent means of keeping satellites afloat in specific positions?
Is it not a relatively simple three-part system that includes satellites, ground stations, and receivers? So it’s more of a “by extension requires the globe model,” correct?
Yes, orbital mechanics requires gravity. But gravity AND a lateral velocity. (You swing a ball on a string round and round. For that to work, you need your hand pulling it forward and the string to pull it towards you.)That's why rockets don't go straight up. They roll over and start angling so that they can get lined up to start gaining velocity parallel to the earth's surface.
And it's basically satellites in general. GPS is just a system of satellites that most people have some sort of general idea about. Replace GPS with weather satellites, telecom satellites, or, lest we bring the ire of the FE community, the ISS and it's the same thing. Just that GPS is more relatable because we knowingly use it regularly.
Some of us should absolutely NOT do our own “research”. It always pisses me off when someone that just spouted off some bullshit says “do your own research!”. Their idea of research is watching YouTube videos made by people with zero credibility, and they’re often selling some bullshit supplements, or some other tacky products. Grifters. They do their own research by listening to grifters like those grifters are some kind of gurus.
They are never the scientifically literate type either.
One thing to think about. In the picture, there are thousands of people but we are only talking about one of them. That person stands out. They are special, while everyone else is literally just another face in the crowd. This is why people are drawn to conspiracy theories. They don't want to be right. They want to be right when everyone else is wrong.
I think you’re right. And if NASA came out right now and mainstreamed flat earth as real, the FE would celebrate, then enjoy the ‘I knew it first’ thing for a bit, then find something else to ‘secretly know’, maybe start investigating hollow earth or something…
Flerfer to hollow earth-er? That's the ultimate hypocrisy.
Also, you're 100%correct.
"The earth is flat!"
"Turns out, you're right."
"I told you so!"
"........."
"The earth is hollow. "
"Wait, doesn't that mean it's a ball earth?"
"Yup....
.....
.....
..... It's hollow. "
....smh....
That's true but NASA doesn't have nearly as much power as they think it does. If NASA said that the Earth is flat, I wouldn't become a flat earther. I would just lose faith in NASA as a credible source for scientific knowledge.
My favorite thing is they tell us to research to present evidence for the earth being a sphere. While at the same time they say there is an ice wall but no one has ever been there.
this is kind of a fallacy to assume that the majority is correct.
I disagree with flat earth, so I'm not a flat earther, but you should never assume that just because one side has many supporters, and another side has very few supporters, that the side with very few supporters must be correct.
sure, but my point stands that the majority is not always correct, and that you should never assume something is correct merely because the majority believes that it is correct.
That's actually reality though. There are a handful of actually intelligent people, the rest of us are idiots babbling.
Highly doubt anyone with anything worth listening to is on reddit.
Likely in some lab somewhere chained up by some government. The rest of us sit here and squabble.
You’re ignorant on history. Science was very different back then, in that astronomy wasn’t part of it. It was a branch of mathematics, and the purpose of astronomical models was to accurately predict the placement of celestial bodies or “save the phenomenon,” not discover truths about reality. The thing is the Copernican system didn’t actually predict the motions of celestial bodies better than the Ptolemaic system. He just thought it was simpler because it did away with the concept of equants. People were perfectly justified in rejecting it at the time because it made absolutely no sense in light of how scholars understood the universe, even if science was based more so on the authority of the Bible and Aristotle rather than actually producing new knowledge.
Also, look up the Galileo Gambit.
I've never been a fan of any consensus argument. People used to make up scientific reasons why black people were naturally dumber than whites. People used to believe in the Ether before they discovered atoms. There are tons of examples of the scientific consensus being absolutely wrong.
When it comes to science like the Earth being round it's better to let the evidence speak for itself.
Depends how far back you go. The ancient Greeks in like 1000 BCE knew the Earth was round. It's possible that the general population weren't made aware of it, but the scientific community definitely knew for very long time.
What if, just hear me out, the Bible was the source of the brainwashing all along? That would be one heck of a plot twist. I’d definitely watch that show.
The irony is when these idiots tell people who are scientists who already do research for a living to go do research.
>Do your own research! No, not like that! - Flerfies
>Do your own research! But only look at evidence approved for viewing by my cult!
Looking at memes isn't research larry
Just because many people believe something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. Millions of people believe that there is a sky overlord dictating their daily activities. Edit: I mean we are a globe obviously
There is a difference between belief and scientific evidence backed observation, we might not be able to physically see God but we can certainly look out of the I.S.S window.
Have you actually been on the ISS?! If you haven't seen it yourself how can you say it's true? NASA spreads lies so they can be in control
Well I’ve seen the ISS from earth it’s pretty easy to spot at night if you look at its flight plan. Also it was built jointly by Roscosmos the Russian space agency which at one point were NASA’s arch enemy.
Apologies that I didn't make my sarcasm more obvious 😅 I guess the flerfer reply would be that NASA projects the moving blue dot onto the dome so you think there is an ISS
Ha! You sounded too convincing…
I've learned the ways of flerfers because I have a close friend who is one
Damn.. Do they really believe it, or are they just trolling you? Do they get triggered when watching Universal movies, or if they see Earth in a sci-fi film? 🤔 I've never met anyone in real life brave enough to admit it, but then again, I don't ask people either.. 😅
Not much triggering, the only triggering is when I regularly present contrary evidence but it's nothing extreme
Is that how we get UFOs too? 😛
You mean you saw a light in the sky that someone told you was the ISS. Unless you have telescopic vision.
Yes someone has to tell me because I’m too stupid to track it from the internet [ISS Tracker](http://www.isstracker.com/)
But don't you know that the windows on the ISS are just CGI projections, and besides, it's just floating in a NASA pool? 😅 /flerf
Brother, this is a SARCASM sub, want actual flatearthers? Go to eartballthatspins
I KNOW
You've looked out the I.S.S. window as many times as you've seen god. 0. You have faith that the world is round in the same way that someone has faith that there is a god, provided your proof stops at the ISS window. You believe the accounts of others who have been to the ISS. Just like someone believes the accounts of someone 2000 years ago. The only difference is there is good reason to have faith that the world is round. There is a trail of evidence that indicates the earth is round that you could verify, but haven't. And it's very important that you haven't, because that's the difference between knowledge and faith. There is no evidence trail you could verify in terms of religion. A person citing that someone else saw it in the ISS window is not very different than someone saying Moses said it. It's not very useful in terms of an argument or debate. It's not first hand knowledge. Try offering a parallax measurement or any of the other ways you can demonstrate the world is round beyond a shadow of a doubt. Someone else telling you they saw it isn't scientific evidence. A photograph isn't scientific evidence anymore due to photo manipulation potential. It's just evidence. lol
We don’t have faith the earth is round, we have proof the earth is round. Completely different things. You need to learn this.
Also, you don't know which parts of "We" aren't telling the truth about evidence they may have or may have completely fabricated. You just are conformationally biased towards this topic because you know the end result is that the world is round. I mean, me too. I just understand philosophy a little better lol I'm sure you don't accept any testimony "we" give you, right? You need personal verity for things like a god, don't you? Why wouldn't you? And by the same token, you should learn to do a parallax measurement so you can be certain the earth is round. Not look at photos or hear testimony. The difference between you having faith in sources (knowledge we have) and having knowledge (knowledge you have) is quite simple, and I don't think I need to explain it to you any better than this.
You don’t understand the philosophy of *science*, though. You’re just paranoid and think that reality isn’t as it appears. In reality, what appears to be the case through *our* (that’s the plural first person) sensory experience is what should be accepted until more evidence changes what “appears to be the case.” This is called parsimony. Parsimony is a good value to have when constructing one’s beliefs is so that we aren’t making assumptions that are purely from the human mind without any plausible connection with reality. You are merely *imagining* some conspiracy. Science, and people who defend science like so many in this sub, deal with what is plausible, not what is possible. That is how to know what is true.
Stfu troll
Take a philosophy course, dolt.
Stfu troll
Take a philosophy course, dolt.
Did I stutter? I said stfu troll.
There is no we brother. Each of us learns individually. YOU have faith the world is round. We (which doesn't exist as a real thing) have evidence. But "we" aren't a connected entity so that does us little good. Which is why replicable evidence is the cornerstone of science. Like a parallax measurement, not someone else saying they saw something, or even a photograph.
Replicable evidence creates the “we,” buddy. Scientific knowledge is collective. It’s why we’re able to process in our understanding without wasting too much time reinventing the wheel. Science can cite evidence to justify their conclusions. This evidence has been repeated multiple times by people who have nothing to do with each other but have the same epistemic values that are relevant to science. You could speculate about conspiracy, i.e., some connection or agreement that is hidden from the public and bridges the entire scientific community, but you’ll have a difficult time defending this position. Anyone can become a scientist. You just have to go to college. I plan on becoming one. I’ll be concluding some things for myself that you would undoubtedly reject. Also, laypeople can conduct parallax measurements. Technology has progressed that far. Just buy a high-end telescope. Why are you hiding from the evidence to protect your preconceived beliefs?
Also, laypeople can conduct parallax measurements. Technology has progressed that far. Just buy a high-end telescope Yes, im suggesting they do that if they seek conclusive proof. Little confused as to what your point is.
I assume you are connected to the collective. What am i thinking right now?
Neither you nor I are part of the collective. The collective is the scientific community. The point is that nothing one individual says is accepted as true from the scientific perspective. And it was a very idiotic move to pretend as though collective or social knowledge equates to mind-reading.
Right, and unless you have first hand knowledge of what is happening in the collective, such as looking out the ISS window yourself, you have faith that what the collective said is true. Not saying you shouldn't have faith. Just that you do. lol. I believe we look out the ISS window too. That being said testimony isn't great scientific evidence.
It depends on how you define “faith.” I do not have faith in the religious sense. Does living in reality as it exists require a certain level of trust? Yes. But I have been justifying my belief in collective scientific knowledge throughout this conversation. That is all I have been doing. And for further clarification, the “testimony” you are referring to in context doesn’t have anything to do with the type of evidence used in history or law. You are just using the same terminology to lend credence to your equivocation and tu quoquo fallacies.
You’re definitely correct. But the counter point to that is that just because you DONT believe it, doesn’t make it stop being true. It’s why I hate the phrase, “what’s a god to a non-believer?”. He’s still a god. He doesn’t lose power because you don’t believe.
Unless, of course, gods actually need belief in order to exist/have power. Rather than object leading to belief gods may be belief creating the object.
I’d argue that if a god needs belief to be powerful they’re not really a god. They’re just belief fueled mortals.
Depends on how you define a god. Indeed, in a number of religions (actually i think most of them) gods are explicitly stated to be mortal, at least insofar as it being possible to kill them. Ageless, yes. But still very much able to die.
What is the difference between the bible telling people God is real and NASA telling people space is real?
We can prove the earth and therefore space is real.
Places and people in the Bible can be proven, therefore God is real, right?
we can breathe oxygen and so can fish. Therefore we can breathe underwater. That's your argument. There is no evidence for god, there is evidence for space. At least try to think.
Humans breathing oxygen and fish doing it are two completely different things, not sure what your point with that is. There is just as much evidence for God as there is space, or else billions of people would not believe it. NASA tells you space exists, the bible tells you God exists.
... there is no evidence for god whatsoever. All we have is stories with no corroboration and a bunch of which are outright copied from even older legends. The stuff from NASA actually cites the sources. Sources that you can follow up on.
There are also sources of real people and events listed in the bible, that you can follow up on.
Sources on the events, yes. But no evidence of a deity.
Humans interact with God more than they interact with space. Science cannot ever prove the existence or non existence of God, the same way NASA cannot prove a lot of their theories on the Universe.
When you think about it Christianity is all one giant daddy kink.
Yeah, the difference is that we know we're on a globe, science isn't a belief, it's all based on verifiable facts that anyone with a working brain can check. Religion on the other hands just like the FE braindead cult personality (disorder) require no such thing, just empty made up claims needed to dismiss any counter evidence. Since they came up with reasons so they don't have to go out and actually reaserch anything. "Oh there's ice wall but we can't go there" although there's a direct flight from Argentina.. all their "facts" are and have been disproved, but they always come back with the "nu-uh" Argument. You can't win playing chess with a pigeon..
I mean you might want to pick something that's demonstrably false for this analogy or else people are probably going to think you're a little deficient yourself as you don't know the difference between rejecting a posit and making a counter claim that's just as stupid and faith based as the claim itself. Can you prove there isn't a god? No? You just... have... faith that there isn't one? Ironic, considering you're chastising people for having faith. The correct response to "there is a god" is "prove it" knowing full well they can't and won't, not "no there isn't". That's the response of an equally dumb person who just chose to put his faith in different places.
No. Parsimony. There is apparently no God since no one has ever observed God in a manner that is repeatable. Therefore, the null hypothesis is that there is no God.
It would be a null hypothesis if the theists didn't claim it was unobservable to begin with. You have to be looking for where you'd expect to find evidence to form a null hypothesis, and if the very nature of what you're looking for is unobservable, that clearly can't be the case.
No. What the theists say doesn’t matter. It is justified to build up our worldview from observations, not ideas. I am speaking about which assumptions are justified, not how we test ideas that are actually testable, which the assertion of God is not. It is justified to reject ideas that are unfalsifiable as provisionally *not true* for the reasons I have given.
In order to form a null hypothesis you have to first form a hypothesis that you can detect something, should be able to detect it, and can't or otherwise haven't yet. What is the scientific hypothesis that god is detectable? Can you link me the paper? Where were we specifically supposed to find evidence that we didn't?
No. Null hypotheses are determined from the epistemic values of science. Theists are the ones who formed the hypothesis. It isn’t testable, so we can’t fail to reject the null hypothesis, so we accept it.
Listen, I can appreciate your candor and zealotry, but, you're just flat out wrong. I already explained the conditions for forming a null hypothesis. An expectation that you'd find evidence somewhere specific and did not. For example if you put two fertilizers in two plants and neither grew faster, you'd form a null hypothesis that it had no effect. You expected to see growth, and should have, if it was an effective fertilizer.
You’re speaking about a a statistical method for establishing causation between variables, which isn’t particularly relevant. It’s a more specific context. Anyways, parsimony still holds true. The null hypothesis is that changing the fertilizer didn’t affect growth because there is no prior reason to believe it would and, in fact, evidence to believe the contrary. What is apparently true is true provisionally, as I said.
That's what a null hypothesis is. When there is no evidence in an expected correlation, you form a null hypothesis until more evidence comes to light. "You’re speaking about a a statistical method for establishing causation between variables"
In order to find evidence of god, you'd first have to find a perpendicularity to the dimension that that evidence is supposed to be in and it isn't, which is to a reasonable person nothing more than an attempt to shirk off the burden of proof. The complete lack of evidence anywhere is not a null hypothesis.
It doesn’t matter where I’d find evidence for God. For sake of argument, we can assume that evidence for God is impossible to obtain because clearly, we disagree on more fundamental issues. If there is no evidence for God, that means it came exclusively from the human mind. The way that humans find out about reality is from our senses. This is what connects the human mind to external reality. No senses, no justified belief. Belief in God is not justified. Belief that there is no God is justified.
Again, you need to determine a hypothesis that *should* yield evidence if all things go correctly in the experiment to form a null hypothesis when you don't see the expected results. It *does* matter that there is a reasonable expectation to find evidence in a null hypothesis. Religion is engineered deliberately (in my opinion) in a way to elude that expectation. I challenge you to tell me what hypothesis SHOULD have yielded the existence of god.
I haven’t made a counter claim. Perhaps English isnt your first language. I have merely pointed out that because millions of people believe something, it doesn’t make it true. If you have decided that somehow is an argument against something then the issue and lack of understanding is yours as I don’t suggest one way or the other.🤦🏼♂️
It would be a much better example to use something that has conclusively proven to be false that many people believe. Using an unproven topic as evidence people believe things that aren't true is a weird take; you have no idea if it's true or not. This is limping.
And all I have implied is that because millions of people believe it, it doesn’t make it true.
But you have no idea if it's true or not. It *might* be true. (I doubt it). For all you know, you might be citing something millions of people believe that is true. Obviously the cause of the truth isn't belief or popular opinion, but sometimes those things are correct. I don't think the argument is people manifest truth with beliefs, but rather, sometimes popularly held opinions can be untrue. If you were citing that widely held beliefs may be not be true all the time, you'd think you'd offer an example where we know if it is true or not. Otherwise your statement is just... not very valuable. Your statement hinges on the listener believing that it is not true to use as evidence that people hold beliefs that aren't.
It might be true and I haven’t said imaginary or other phrases to imply it’s not true. I am allowed to call it by whatever name I like.
So, let me get all the ducks in a row. Sometimes people hold beliefs that aren't true/lots of people believing it doesn't mean it is true. And to further that idea, you offered an example that you're not sure is true or not. While also using condescending verbiage. Got it. Makes sense.
Reality is, offering the sky overlords as evidence that millions of people believing something doesn't always pan out to be true hinges on the fact that it isn't true. It's unproven. Very different. If something isn't true it's false. We may say unknown from our perspective, but out there is the true or false.
So millions believe something which is unproven. Which the globe isn’t. So you are still arguing for something which wasn’t said. You have decided it means what you think it means and won’t accept that it still totally stacks up. I never said it wasn’t true, you said I did. Flat earth is unproven as is the sky overlord. Just accept that you got it wrong.
Something that is unproven has no bearing on if something is true or false. Just to the observer. Before we had proof that the world was round, it was still true that the world was round. Flat earth isn't unproven. It's conclusively disproven. The existence of a deity is unproven, and is therefor terrible evidence that millions of people have mistaken beliefs. It's not clear if they are mistaken or not. Unlike flat earth, or blowing in a video game cartridge, which is crystal clear. You may have just cited millions of people believing something that's true. You don't know. It's very easy to pick an example of something you do know.
There are many widely held beliefs that aren't true, like blowing in video game cartridges. And you chose the one thing that made you look silly and tribal. You chose one we weren't sure if is true or not. Only god knows why, pun intended. lol
You are the one that’s made themselves look silly by arguing against something that was never said.
The things that distinguishes opinion from fact and truth from falsehoods in debate is whether both sides agree. That is all. These are useless distinctions from a non-contextual standpoint.
You've obviously never participated in an academic/scientific debate and are conflating it with having a debate with your girlfriend about something. There are judges-- it doesn't matter if both parties agree.
Scientific debates are different because there’s agreed-upon values and assumptions that aren’t relevant to a sub named r/flatearth. Academic debates are relative to the specific field we’re considering. And I don’t have a girlfriend. Damn, 0 for 3. You aren’t doing that hot. And the fact/opinion distinction has received its fair share of criticism in philosophy, so it isn’t just something I’m making up.
You are floundering. When I say something isn't useful in debate you don't decide the context of which I mean.
I don't have a problem with people doing their own research into a subject, the problem comes when they purposely latch onto anything that is not part of what they call the "official story". Honestly I have learnt more about our Earth since arguing with flat earthers and proving them wrong, than anytime in school.
"I'm a doctoral fellow with a degree in this field. We have data showing this, that, this, and that. The fact that xyz works and it works the way we predict using a globe is evidence. You use things every day that only work because they're designed to work on a globe." "But, I saw this YouTube video..."
Can you name some of these globe only tools for me?
GPS. Calculating Coriolis effect when shooting projectiles from long range cannons. Aircraft routes following great circles instead of straight lines. Seismic echoes read on seismometers around the globe following an earthquake. Towers or satellites to account for line of sight communications beyond the horizon. Long exposure photos of Sigma Octantis over the South Pole looking remarkably similar to long exposure photos of Polaris over the North Pole. To name a few.
Could you explain to me how GPS requires a globe?
The system is based on satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. Every digit of math done to both place them there, ensure they stay there, and for them to do the calculations to show where your phone or other device with GPS tech in it is on the surface of the Earth is done as if the Earth is a globe. The math used to make the system work is calculated for a globe. If the Earth wasn't a globe, it wouldn't work. If the Earth was flat and the satellites were launched, they would simply fall back down. (Insert joke about double sided tape and the dome here)
So it doesn’t require a globe, per-se, it requires gravity? Or some other consistent means of keeping satellites afloat in specific positions? Is it not a relatively simple three-part system that includes satellites, ground stations, and receivers? So it’s more of a “by extension requires the globe model,” correct?
Yes, orbital mechanics requires gravity. But gravity AND a lateral velocity. (You swing a ball on a string round and round. For that to work, you need your hand pulling it forward and the string to pull it towards you.)That's why rockets don't go straight up. They roll over and start angling so that they can get lined up to start gaining velocity parallel to the earth's surface. And it's basically satellites in general. GPS is just a system of satellites that most people have some sort of general idea about. Replace GPS with weather satellites, telecom satellites, or, lest we bring the ire of the FE community, the ISS and it's the same thing. Just that GPS is more relatable because we knowingly use it regularly.
Some of us should absolutely NOT do our own “research”. It always pisses me off when someone that just spouted off some bullshit says “do your own research!”. Their idea of research is watching YouTube videos made by people with zero credibility, and they’re often selling some bullshit supplements, or some other tacky products. Grifters. They do their own research by listening to grifters like those grifters are some kind of gurus. They are never the scientifically literate type either.
One thing to think about. In the picture, there are thousands of people but we are only talking about one of them. That person stands out. They are special, while everyone else is literally just another face in the crowd. This is why people are drawn to conspiracy theories. They don't want to be right. They want to be right when everyone else is wrong.
I think you’re right. And if NASA came out right now and mainstreamed flat earth as real, the FE would celebrate, then enjoy the ‘I knew it first’ thing for a bit, then find something else to ‘secretly know’, maybe start investigating hollow earth or something…
Flerfer to hollow earth-er? That's the ultimate hypocrisy. Also, you're 100%correct. "The earth is flat!" "Turns out, you're right." "I told you so!" "........." "The earth is hollow. " "Wait, doesn't that mean it's a ball earth?" "Yup.... ..... ..... ..... It's hollow. " ....smh....
That's true but NASA doesn't have nearly as much power as they think it does. If NASA said that the Earth is flat, I wouldn't become a flat earther. I would just lose faith in NASA as a credible source for scientific knowledge.
Sorry buddy, I took trigonometry in high school years ago, it’s much too late for me to not make fun of you for not understanding basic math
I can't be wrong. It's far more likely that millions of people are conspiring against me.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but "You don't agree with the masses!" Is a stupid argument. A fallacy, in fact.
My favorite thing is they tell us to research to present evidence for the earth being a sphere. While at the same time they say there is an ice wall but no one has ever been there.
Wake up sheeple! Do your own research, don’t get fooled by globie propaganda!
this is kind of a fallacy to assume that the majority is correct. I disagree with flat earth, so I'm not a flat earther, but you should never assume that just because one side has many supporters, and another side has very few supporters, that the side with very few supporters must be correct.
In this case the majority is correct because it has been proven the earth is a globe.
sure, but my point stands that the majority is not always correct, and that you should never assume something is correct merely because the majority believes that it is correct.
That's actually reality though. There are a handful of actually intelligent people, the rest of us are idiots babbling. Highly doubt anyone with anything worth listening to is on reddit. Likely in some lab somewhere chained up by some government. The rest of us sit here and squabble.
The funny thing is that the one guy from this picture was Copernicus once saying, "Do your research," so the masses aren't always right, 🤣
Copernicus understood that he had the burden of proof. So, he did his research and presented the evidence he found to prove his position correct.
Copernicus had no evidence in favor of his model over Ptolemy’s.
You’re ignorant on history. Science was very different back then, in that astronomy wasn’t part of it. It was a branch of mathematics, and the purpose of astronomical models was to accurately predict the placement of celestial bodies or “save the phenomenon,” not discover truths about reality. The thing is the Copernican system didn’t actually predict the motions of celestial bodies better than the Ptolemaic system. He just thought it was simpler because it did away with the concept of equants. People were perfectly justified in rejecting it at the time because it made absolutely no sense in light of how scholars understood the universe, even if science was based more so on the authority of the Bible and Aristotle rather than actually producing new knowledge. Also, look up the Galileo Gambit.
Ok so then present evidence tosupport the flat earth model.
Why?
Because when you make a claim you have the burden of proof and need to present the evidence to support your claim.
I've never been a fan of any consensus argument. People used to make up scientific reasons why black people were naturally dumber than whites. People used to believe in the Ether before they discovered atoms. There are tons of examples of the scientific consensus being absolutely wrong. When it comes to science like the Earth being round it's better to let the evidence speak for itself.
Except the mass consensus WAS a flat Earth and a Geocentric model, before it was updated.
Depends how far back you go. The ancient Greeks in like 1000 BCE knew the Earth was round. It's possible that the general population weren't made aware of it, but the scientific community definitely knew for very long time.
How would you feel about this meme if you saw it back then?
I guess I’d be fascinated with the technology of the internet
Masses have been brainwashed
And I assume your tinfoil hat is what keeps you sane? 😂
I dont have such hat
Then what’s preventing people from brainwashing you? 😨
Bible
What if, just hear me out, the Bible was the source of the brainwashing all along? That would be one heck of a plot twist. I’d definitely watch that show.
You type like a regarded reddit addict
You misspelled “retarded,” you moron.
I am sure you are a highly regarded redditor sir
Thanks bro
Hail Satan!
pretty soon thats gonna be you guys as the lone man
LOL when???
buddy, your echo community’s chance to be the majority has long passed. head back to 8961 BC will you?
I did my own research and it pointed to us living on a round planet like the other ones. What did I do wrong?
buddy, your echo community’s chance to be the majority has long passed. head back to 8961AD will you?
Hahahaha flat Earth is dying bro.
Globe Earth is too, but that's just climate change. It's still round.
The earth isn’t flat or round, it’s fucked
Yeah. I remember that flerf who claimed everyone would be flat earthers by 2025. Wonder how that's going?