[RunnerInTheFields]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat. Someone asked me if someone has seen the edge then and I couldn’t answer! What is the edge like and has someone seen it? Why can't we see images of this? Are they covered up by the government?

[TomFoolery]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat. Someone asked me if someone has seen the edge then and I couldn’t answer! What is the edge like and has someone seen it? Why can't we see images of this? Are they covered up by the government?

There is a treaty that we say prevents us from going there. It's called the Antarctic Treaty.

You can read a scanned copy of the original here: https://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf

Here's a searchable text copy of it: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/193967.htm

I didn't see anything in there myself about preventing us from exploring, as long as we don't take an army in there for the purpose of performing a military maneuver.

I had a similar question to you, and my friend told me it was because of the treaty. He'd never read it so I did, so I'm not sure what to say.

But I'm new to all of this, so maybe some of the long time flat earthers will chime in with more information.

[RunnerInTheFields]

I see no reason why this treaty should stop someone to see the edge. There have been many people to the antarctic already. Maybe not far enough. Even planes land there, they can fly a bit further.

[stack]

I see no reason why this treaty should stop someone to see the edge. There have been many people to the antarctic already. Maybe not far enough. Even planes land there, they can fly a bit further.

My understanding is that those who ascribe to the existence of an ice wall believe that to venture deep into that territory is too dangerous. Whether by land or air. It's not the treaty that prevents one from going there. It's that you will die if you go too far.

[RunnerInTheFields]

I find this answer vague, unspecific and unfulfilling.

[stack]

However insufficient the explanation is, it's necessary from a Flat Earth Theory standpoint.

You can't go to the edge for perhaps one of three reasons:

1) You're forbidden by governments, conspiracy, armed guards, treaties, killer penguins, etc. (All of which have been thoroughly debunked)
2) Take the AE north pole centered mono-pole FE theory, the 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun doesn't shine beyond the wall, therefore the land is inhospitable to any human life as it is dark, incalculably cold and just downright deadly.
3) The flat earth plane is infinite so there is no edge.

In other words, pick your poison.

[Pulad1949]

I see no reason why this treaty should stop someone to see the edge. There have been many people to the antarctic already. Maybe not far enough. Even planes land there, they can fly a bit further.

My understanding is that those who ascribe to the existence of an ice wall believe that to venture deep into that territory is too dangerous. Whether by land or air. It's not the treaty that prevents one from going there. It's that you will die if you go too far.

I regret to be the one who gives you this news but ... did you know that commercial transpolar flights have been made? At present they are not being made (for commercial reasons) but an Argentine airline was doing them for a while. I leave here the information that I have on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

[stack]

I see no reason why this treaty should stop someone to see the edge. There have been many people to the antarctic already. Maybe not far enough. Even planes land there, they can fly a bit further.

My understanding is that those who ascribe to the existence of an ice wall believe that to venture deep into that territory is too dangerous. Whether by land or air. It's not the treaty that prevents one from going there. It's that you will die if you go too far.

I regret to be the one who gives you this news but ... did you know that commercial transpolar flights have been made?

Yes.

[manicminer]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat

Good luck with that one. Why would God create the Earth to be flat..  and since the concept of God is ultimately a human creation I would put it to you that you are simply using the God concept as a means to justify your own belief in a flat Earth.

[timterroo]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat

Good luck with that one. Why would God create the Earth to be flat..  and since the concept of God is ultimately a human creation I would put it to you that you are simply using the God concept as a means to justify your own belief in a flat Earth.

Does it matter why someone chooses to believe the earth is flat? Let's leave our presumptions behind for a moment.

To believe the earth is flat takes a leap of faith just as it does to believe in god, but that is where the two concepts diverge as far as I'm concerned.

If you go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove the earth is flat, you will ultimately end up with more unanswered questions than answered ones.

However, when you try to understand/prove how the earth is flat, you might end up understanding just how hard it is to prove the earth is round . This is why I am fascinated with FE theory - it challenges the status quo and everything you have been blindly taught your whole life.

Time to use that thinking cap!

[Pulad1949]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat

Good luck with that one. Why would God create the Earth to be flat..  and since the concept of God is ultimately a human creation I would put it to you that you are simply using the God concept as a means to justify your own belief in a flat Earth.

Does it matter why someone chooses to believe the earth is flat? Let's leave our presumptions behind for a moment.

To believe the earth is flat takes a leap of faith just as it does to believe in god, but that is where the two concepts diverge as far as I'm concerned.

If you go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove the earth is flat, you will ultimately end up with more unanswered questions than answered ones.

However, when you try to understand/prove how the earth is flat, you might end up understanding just how hard it is to prove the earth is round . This is why I am fascinated with FE theory - it challenges the status quo and everything you have been blindly taught your whole life.

Time to use that thinking cap!

The thing is that science is not a matter of belief, because of how the scientific method works. The conclusions we draw will always be based on the perception that we have of the universe. When one scientific theory is changed by another, it is because our perception of the universe has changed, either because we have discovered new technologies or because there was a possibility that was not taken into account in the original theory.
This is not the case of FE model, since as we know, this is how it was thought to be the land, until it was proven otherwise.

[iamcpc]

I find this answer vague, unspecific and unfulfilling.

There are many answers.

1. You are discussing one specific flat earth model that has an edge. There are many models that don't have an edge. (the earth does not have an edge)
2. There are boats of people who shoot anyone who comes within viewing distance of the edge and drop their bodies in the ocean with lead weights.
3. The edge is outside of the dome so you can't go there.
4. The edge is outside of the firmament so you can't go there.
5. There is a giant unpassable ice wall which prevents you from seeing the edge.
6. Many many people have already been to the edge.
7. No one can explore the edge because we don't know where it is.

[ThisSocietyIsCompleteBS]

I find this answer vague, unspecific and unfulfilling.

There are many answers.

1. You are discussing one specific flat earth model that has an edge. There are many models that don't have an edge. (the earth does not have an edge)
2. There are boats of people who shoot anyone who comes within viewing distance of the edge and drop their bodies in the ocean with lead weights.
3. The edge is outside of the dome so you can't go there.
4. The edge is outside of the firmament so you can't go there.
5. There is a giant unpassable ice wall which prevents you from seeing the edge.
6. Many many people have already been to the edge.
7. No one can explore the edge because we don't know where it is.




Or because the earth ain´t flat. It´s a sphere. The dome doesn´t exist and it´s as simple as it gets. The edge? Yeah right like the government is protecting some ice wall at th edge of the "flat earth", that´s just retarded. Edges does not exist because the earth is a sphere. I´m not gonna argue with a million facts and examples that proves the earth is sphere etc etc.

[timterroo]

I am trying to convince my prayer group that god created the earth to be flat

Good luck with that one. Why would God create the Earth to be flat..  and since the concept of God is ultimately a human creation I would put it to you that you are simply using the God concept as a means to justify your own belief in a flat Earth.

Does it matter why someone chooses to believe the earth is flat? Let's leave our presumptions behind for a moment.

To believe the earth is flat takes a leap of faith just as it does to believe in god, but that is where the two concepts diverge as far as I'm concerned.

If you go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove the earth is flat, you will ultimately end up with more unanswered questions than answered ones.

However, when you try to understand/prove how the earth is flat, you might end up understanding just how hard it is to prove the earth is round . This is why I am fascinated with FE theory - it challenges the status quo and everything you have been blindly taught your whole life.

Time to use that thinking cap!

The thing is that science is not a matter of belief, because of how the scientific method works. The conclusions we draw will always be based on the perception that we have of the universe. When one scientific theory is changed by another, it is because our perception of the universe has changed, either because we have discovered new technologies or because there was a possibility that was not taken into account in the original theory.
This is not the case of FE model, since as we know, this is how it was thought to be the land, until it was proven otherwise.

I would argue that science IS a matter of belief. For instance, take the president of the United States. Regardless how much scientific evidence there is of global warming caused by humans, he chooses to believe that it is a hoax.

Also, take the case of the atom. Science has proven that atoms and molecules exist, but beyond that, it takes a great deal of faith to actually believe in particles and sub particles that make up atoms. Afterall, we cannot (science cannot) actually prove their existence. Science can (reasonably) prove the cause and effect of sub-atomic particles, but we don't actually know much about them. And, what about sub-sub atomic particles? Surely there are particles that make up the sub-particles.... what are those? Do you believe they exist?

If science tells you that the earth is 24,901 miles in circumference, you can take that on faith because nobody is disputing that (except for FET). However, since you have not actually measured (and I can make that assumption on faith) the circumference of the earth, you must take it on faith to be true. Simply put, if you have not empirically observed something, you are taking it on faith that someone else has. Further down the rabbit hole, you can also ask whether or not your empirical observations are true - for you must take it on faith that your senses are receiving data correctly, and you must take it on faith that your brain is interpreting your senses correctly.

[ChrisTP]

Part of the problem is the idea  that science is some kind of large entity that is capable of intentionally tricking the public, but actually the scientific community is made up of a huge percentage of the worlds population of the general public. All the research is carried out by a lot of normal people who also peer-review each others work. Science isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted after review. Then the non-scientific people take on faith what the scientific consensus is, because the consensus is agreed by the professionals in that subject.

Trump is a bad example because he's not a scientist and he only knows money and business. He's otherwise not exactly smart either.

[timterroo]

Part of the problem is the idea  that science is some kind of large entity that is capable of intentionally tricking the public, but actually the scientific community is made up of a huge percentage of the worlds population of the general public. All the research is carried out by a lot of normal people who also peer-review each others work. Science isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted after review. Then the non-scientific people take on faith what the scientific consensus is, because the consensus is agreed by the professionals in that subject.

Trump is a bad example because he's not a scientist and he only knows money and business. He's otherwise not exactly smart either.

I see what you're saying, which is why my 'faith-based' argument is a hard stance to take, however let's look at this way:

Science can never actually 'prove' anything. It is sort of like in the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty (supposedly). In science, a theory is only a theory until it is proven wrong. You do not 'prove' facts, you 'disprove' theories of fact. If you want to prove something exists, you do it by proving that it cannot not exist.