A few points, in part just summarizing 3DGeek's threads:
1) The religious basis for flat earth is not well supported in the Bible:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/2) There does not exist a testable map or model of a flat earth that is consistent with observation
a - examples include hurricanes, clouds being lit from underneath during sunrise and sunset, mountains being lit from the side, distances between cities requiring a curved surface, and other observations that are impossible on a flat earth
b - without a working model of flat earth, making experimental predictions is impossible
3) There is overwhelming photographic and experimental evidence of the earth's curvature
a - not just NASA's photo collections (
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html) ...
b - but all the high-altitude photos that show a horizon distance consistent with a spherical earth (
http://time.com/world-trade-center/), and ...
c -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/7-diy-experiments-b-o-b-the-earth-is-round/4) The Zetetic method leads to a conclusion of a round earth
a - keeping an open mind, gather observations to a form a conclusion; the above constitutes sufficient observation to conclude the earth is round
b - flat earth requires immense unsupported assumptions, including folded space time or universal acceleration or faulty laws of perspective, and relying on unobserved or even unobservable phenomena is incompatible with Zetetics
//
All that said, while I'm happy to discuss with whoever wants to chime in, I am not here to try and change anyone's mind, but to provide good information to anyone who wanders to this forum not knowing for sure which model is more accurate.