[Wonderer]

I previously posted a question asking why, if the Earth is flat, evidence would have been falsified and the millions involved in keeping this secret for thousands of years wouldn't have let slip.

Pete's response was to point me to the FAQ - I'd already read this before posting my initial question and it held no information on the question:

If the Earth is flat why is there so much effort in saying otherwise?

We see in The Conspiracy:

There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

Okay, great! So no one is trying to put out false information about the shape. The page goes on to talk about a conspiracy around space travel but that diverges from our initial question.

Forget NASA or America, the idea that the Earth is round had been around for thousands of years before them.

For the idea to carry on we need every country to buy into it, we need physicists to construct laws of physics and spend their lives writing about this, assumedly fictional, work. We need handlers to make sure none of these people blab and we need to have had it for thousands of years.

Throughout the FAQ nothing addresses the question of why, if the Earth is flat, there so much effort in saying otherwise?

[MathJunkie1]

I'm glad we're getting down into the nitty gritty questions that Flat Earthers don't like us to ask. It really makes them start to sweat.
I have a follow up question which is comparable to yours:
How come all these supposed "conspirators" who say the Earth is ROUND agree completely on what that looks like, but there are so many different presentations of a flat Earth?
I've seen people say we live in a closed system where all the stars and other planets are simple lights in the sky, yet I've also seen the official Flat Earth Society post on Twitter that, unlike the Earth, Mars has been observed to be spherical! I think there's too much of people asking "how can we prove this" and too little of people asking "why do we need to prove this"

[Wonderer]

I just think it's healthy to ask the whys.

There can be a lot of things that are confusing at first glance. If a person is looking out the window and thinks the world appears flat it might be difficult for them to reconcile that with what they're being told by scientists, teachers, pilots and so on. This might tempt them to search for an alternative view point that stays consistent with the belief the earth is flat. Fine if they want to explore that, but they should also be considering why, if the world is flat, the other people are saying otherwise.

[GreatATuin]

Also, why pretend we have satellite navigation, satellite broadcasting, satellite communications including internet and phone, satellite imagery for cartography and weather forecasting if these things don't exist? If they were an illusion, keeping this illusion alive would be extraordinarily hard and expensive. So why create the illusion in the first place?

Some flat earthers seem keen to distance themselves from conspiracy theorists, but the naked truth is you just can't believe in a flat Earth and not believe in a massive global conspiracy.

[JRowe]

I'm glad we're getting down into the nitty gritty questions that Flat Earthers don't like us to ask. It really makes them start to sweat.

'Don't like you to ask' doesn't mean 'sweating,' it means 'bored.' Do you really think you're being original?

Obviously no one can give you the nitty-gritty details of what's by definition concealed, so there are a number of possibilities. My personal conclusion is that even as recently as the 60s they did genuinely believe the world was round, that was the conclusion they'd reached, established, and when the time came for space travel the issue had been soaked too much in political rivalry and tension that when they struggled to make it work (using RE physics for calculations), they ultimately chose to fake the images in line with what it was they believed to be the case to score points. Russia came up with that idea first, the US scrambled for a bit before deciding to dedicate their efforts to faking in turn, and one-upping the Russians.
That was how it started, and there's not exactly a good point to come out and say 'oh, no, we made all that up,' particularly when the other side hasn't. At this point it's self-sustaining. There's one RE model because they took the one they believed in at the time and basically put it above question.

[Tom Bishop]

The Wiki talks a little about the origins of Round Earth Theory.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ancient_Greeks

It all started when some of the Ancient Greek Philosophers decided that they wanted to rebel against the scriptures by showing that the Earth and various phenomena could be explained through natural processes rather than divine intervention. They went out and found observations which they could interpret for a round world.

We later found out that this process of investigation is invalid, and that Scientific truth could only really be discovered through experimentation rather than the fallacy of human interpretation. Despite the bulk of truths in fundamental physics being experimental in nature, Astronomy remains observational.

When browsing the titles of science books at a local bookstore you will find that this whole secular movement and attitude of "Here are observations which disprove scripture" continues today. We find titles like 'The God delusion', 'Outgrowing God', 'Nullifying God', etc. Clearly an underlying motive there.

So yes, while not espousing any particular position, it really all has to do with religion. From the very beginning it was really all about science trying to disprove God. A shameful bias.

[GreatATuin]

My personal conclusion is that even as recently as the 60s they did genuinely believe the world was round, that was the conclusion they'd reached, established, and when the time came for space travel the issue had been soaked too much in political rivalry and tension that when they struggled to make it work (using RE physics for calculations), they ultimately chose to fake the images in line with what it was they believed to be the case to score points. Russia came up with that idea first, the US scrambled for a bit before deciding to dedicate their efforts to faking in turn, and one-upping the Russians.
That was how it started, and there's not exactly a good point to come out and say 'oh, no, we made all that up,' particularly when the other side hasn't. At this point it's self-sustaining. There's one RE model because they took the one they believed in at the time and basically put it above question.

And no one involved ever exposed the plot? Such a conspiracy would probaby involve millions of people if not more. At least anyone working with anything related with satellites. Where are the whistleblowers? How do you make so many people keep it a secret?

[JSS]

When browsing the titles of science books at a local bookstore you will find that this whole secular movement and attitude of "Here are observations which disprove scripture" continues today. We find titles like 'The God delusion', 'Outgrowing God', 'Nullifying God', etc. Clearly an underlying motive there.

So yes, while not espousing any particular position, it really all has to do with religion. From the very beginning it was really all about science trying to disprove God. A shameful bias.

Show me one published scientific paper that claims to prove God exists or does not. Source, please.

Random books people write are not science, they are entertainment. People can argue God exists or does not, science doesn't touch that.

Science has NOTHING to do with religion, it's the exact opposite, science specifically does NOT argue for or against the supernatural or faith. That's why we have religion. Religion deals with questions science does not touch. Religion is faith based, science is fact based. If your faith is threatened by science, it's not sciences fault.

[Tom Bishop]

The people writing those books are often scientists themselves.

That sort of content appears in published scientific papers as well.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400

And from this paper we learn:

On October 10, 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) Board adopted a resolution that registered its opposition to “so-called
‘intelligent design theory,’ also known as ID” (1).

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one of the largest, oldest, and most prestigious mainstream science organizations. They officially oppose the doctrine of intelligent design. They officially declare their bias.

A science organization declaring official opposition to a theory. How, exactly, did they prove that God, or some unknown intelligence, did not guide evolution or biology like ID suggests? After all, the Scientific Method demands that science bases its truths on experimentation. Yet in this case they must argue and interpret this position, rather than demonstrate it. Such a declaration without such evidence is an unscientific position and not a search for truth.

ID believers may be guilty of the same, but two wrongs do not make a right. Science is still espousing things without sufficient experimental demonstration. Embarrassing and hypocritical.

[AATW]

It all started when some of the Ancient Greek Philosophers decided that they wanted to rebel against the scriptures by showing that the Earth and various phenomena could be explained through natural processes rather than divine intervention.

I don't know if that was their motivation. If so it was misguided. Although I don't know what you mean by "the scriptures". Would the ancient Greeks have been that well versed in what we now know as the Old Testament?
But it's worth remembering they were working at a time when most things were probably understood by "God did it". Or, at that time, "the gods".
Volcano? The gods are angry. And so on.
Starting to understand how volcanoes work, what the physical processes make them erupt, doesn't detract from being in awe of the power they have.
Any more than understanding how sunlight reflects and refracts through raindrops detracts from how beautiful rainbows are.
It is possible to understand the mechanics of certain things and still be in awe of God and His creation.
In fact, the more you learn about science the more mind-blowing some of it is.

We later found out that this process of investigation is invalid, and that Scientific truth could only really be discovered through experimentation rather than the fallacy of human interpretation.

Any experiment has underlying assumptions and the results have to be interpreted.
You have a whole page about how if you assume a flat earth then Eratosthenes' experiment result could be interpreted as meaning a close sun.
But you've also assumed light going in straight lines which contradicts your EA theory so I'm a bit confused about that one.

When browsing the titles of science books at a local bookstore you will find that this whole secular movement and attitude of "Here are observations which disprove scripture" continues today. We find titles like 'The God delusion', 'Outgrowing God', 'Nullifying God', etc. Clearly an underlying motive there.

I'm going to do something I don't often do and agree with you there. There are some scientists who are clearly anti-God and anti religion.
You indirectly mention Dawkins. I wonder about him. I've read The Blind Watchmaker and it's really well written and explained.
But why does he feel the need to write books about God? I've not read The God Delusion. Part of me thinks I should if only to understand his argument and so I can respond to anyone who has read it. But the stuff I have seen him write or say about religion or God betrays such an ignorance of the subject I wonder why he feels the need to pontificate about it. It's not enough for him to not believe, he has to try and stop anyone else believing too. He's obviously got a real chip on his shoulder about religion and I wonder why. What has happened to him? He's of a generation where I guess he'd have been made to go to church as a kid so I'm guessing he had a bad experience. It's sad really.

But anyway, I'd suggest that people like him are in the minority in the scientific world. Maybe most scientists are atheist. I don't know. But I don't think many of them are actively trying to "disprove God". I don't know where this idea that religion and science are in conflict and you have to "pick a side" comes from. I really don't see it that way.

If you believe in a flat earth because you are a Biblical literalist, as Rowbotham was, then I'd ask what shape the earth is. Because there are verses talking about the "circle of the earth" but there are verses talking about the "four corners of the earth". Circles famously don't have corners.

If you see a bit of science which conflicts with your understanding of Scripture then you seem to be one of those people who assumes that the science must be wrong. But there is another option - maybe your understanding of Scripture is wrong. Note, your understanding of it, not the Scripture itself. I don't think many Christians believe in a flat earth - I don't know any that do. Pretty much all of us have come to understand that parts of the Bible talk poetically and aren't to be read like a scientific text.

If scientists are actively trying to disprove God then they are misguided. But if any Christians are trying to disprove science which disagrees with their understanding of Scripture then I'd suggest they're equally misguided. Science and Christianity can both answer questions about creation but in different ways. Science would be looking at the mechanics of it and Christians would be talking about the purpose behind it.

I'll leave the final word to Pope John Paul II, who once said:

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.

[JSS]

A science organization declaring official opposition to a theory. How, exactly, did they prove that God, or some unknown intelligence, did not guide evolution or biology like ID suggests? Sad. The Scientific Method demands that science bases its truths on experimentation. Yet in this case they must argue and interpret this position, rather than demonstrate it. Such a declaration without such evidence is an unscientific position and not a search for truth.

You are deliberately misreading and misstating what they were saying.

Nowhere, nowhere in either of those references do they state that God does not exist. Not once. They are opposing groups that are anti-science trying to push their religious ideas into schools where it doesn't belong.

You can absolutely oppose a theory. My theory is that I have an invisible baby dragon in a box that can't be seen or detected in any way. Any scientist would reject that theory because it's unproveable.

What these scientists are against isn't religion, it's people trying to prove religion using science which just isn't possible. They are against intelligent-design 'theory' because it's not a theory. They are against teaching 'creationism' in schools because that's religion, and people should be free to follow whatever religion they want and not be forced to learn it.

"God did it" is not a theory.  You can't prove or disprove it. It's not science, it's religion, and we have churches for that. Science is for learning facts, religion is for figuring out what to do with those facts. You can have both if you want. It's not sciences responsibility to solve your existential crisis.

Try and wrap your head around this.

[Tom Bishop]

"God did it" is not a theory.  You can't prove or disprove it.

If they can't disprove it then they shouldn't create an official position on it.

Max Planck said: "Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination."

If we take this as the absolute rule for science then we find that all we know is what experimentation tells us. The positions of "God did do it" and " God did not do it" are poetry imagination and up to interpretation. Rather than admitting this, they create and declare a position telling us that it is wrong.

[JRowe]

My personal conclusion is that even as recently as the 60s they did genuinely believe the world was round, that was the conclusion they'd reached, established, and when the time came for space travel the issue had been soaked too much in political rivalry and tension that when they struggled to make it work (using RE physics for calculations), they ultimately chose to fake the images in line with what it was they believed to be the case to score points. Russia came up with that idea first, the US scrambled for a bit before deciding to dedicate their efforts to faking in turn, and one-upping the Russians.
That was how it started, and there's not exactly a good point to come out and say 'oh, no, we made all that up,' particularly when the other side hasn't. At this point it's self-sustaining. There's one RE model because they took the one they believed in at the time and basically put it above question.

And no one involved ever exposed the plot? Such a conspiracy would probaby involve millions of people if not more. At least anyone working with anything related with satellites. Where are the whistleblowers? How do you make so many people keep it a secret?

Assume some basic competence on the part of the conspiracy-makers, seriously. If you assume everyone involved is terrible at their job, maybe you have a point, but otherwise?
Why would everyone involved in satellites need to be in on it? Most of those people just get the data, they don't need to know where it's from, so long as the pseudo-system is sufficiently well-made to simulate a satellite system. As for the people who monitor that pseudo-system, why on earth would you tell them that they're in charge of a replacement for satellites? They don't need to know that. They just need to know, say, they're complementing it, or trying out a new idea... why whistleblow when you don't think you know anything newsworthy?

[JSS]

"God did it" is not a theory.  You can't prove or disprove it.

If they can't disprove it then they shouldn't create an official position on it.

They should not take an official position on God's existence, which is why they DON'T.

I will repeat myself again, they are NOT taking a position on God's existence. Your references proved my point, they are arguing the teaching of things like intelligent--design in public schools. They do not say God doesn't exist. They just don't. You are making that up.

Your references are NOT saying God does not exist.

Science does NOT say God does not exist.

How many times do I have to say it?

Show me where they say "God does not exist" in that link of yours.

I asked you to show me a paper that said it, and you linked one that does NOT say it.

Sorry I'm repeating myself here, but I seem to have no other way of communicating this.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't say anything about the existence of God. ID says that evolution and biology is guided by intelligent processes. The science position is that this is wrong. Just read the paper.

Abstract:

Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach “creation science,” one now finds lobbying for “intelligent design” (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge strategy,” the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.

They believe that it has been thoroughly refuted. They believe that they refuted it and can create an official position that it is wrong.

Lets see the experimental evidence for this position, as the Scientific Method demands for our scientific truths. Ready? Go.

[JSS]

Just read the paper.

Abstract:

Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach “creation science,” one now finds lobbying for “intelligent design” (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge strategy,” the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.

They believe that it has been thoroughly refuted. They believe that they disproved it.

Lets see the experimental evidence for this, as the Scientific Method demands. Ready? Go.

"Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted."

Do you see the difference? They are saying specific arguments have been refuted. They are NOT saying "God is dead" or any such nonsense as you claim.

"God exists."  This is a statement science will not touch.

"God exists because 1+1=3."  This is an argument, and can indeed be refuted by science.

Do you see the difference?

[Tom Bishop]

What are you talking about? ID is about whether biology and evolution was guided by intelligent processes. The existence of a God is not in the scope of that.

Rather than making up arguments, you should probably just admit that Science is espousing things without sufficient experimental evidence.

[GreatATuin]

Assume some basic competence on the part of the conspiracy-makers, seriously. If you assume everyone involved is terrible at their job, maybe you have a point, but otherwise?
Why would everyone involved in satellites need to be in on it? Most of those people just get the data, they don't need to know where it's from, so long as the pseudo-system is sufficiently well-made to simulate a satellite system. As for the people who monitor that pseudo-system, why on earth would you tell them that they're in charge of a replacement for satellites? They don't need to know that. They just need to know, say, they're complementing it, or trying out a new idea... why whistleblow when you don't think you know anything newsworthy?

How many people do you think it takes to make a "sufficiently well-made" system that simulates thousands of satellites monitoring the whole planet in real time? And systems that appear to function exactly like they are supposed to function with a satellite, see for example how to align a satellite dish?

If the data from such systems is fake, do you think the people who get and analyze it would not realize after some time? If it's not, what could possibly simulate it? Balloons everywhere for example? Who launched them, where are them, how come nobody found about them?

No whistleblower, zero, nada in decades of satellite operations. Not a crack for more than 60 years in a global, international conspiracy. How do you explain that?

[JSS]

What are you talking about? ID is about whether biology and evolution was guided by intelligent processes. The existence of a God is not in the scope of that.

Rather than making up arguments, you should probably just admit that Science is espousing things without sufficient experimental evidence.

Wait.  So you quoted this... "Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted."

You said that was evidence that science is declaring God does not exist because they are against the theory of ID.

But now you say that ID has nothing to do with the existence God.

So, if ID has nothing to do with the existence of god, how can refuting that theory be saying God doesn't exist?

You are digging a deep, deep hole here.

[JRowe]

Assume some basic competence on the part of the conspiracy-makers, seriously. If you assume everyone involved is terrible at their job, maybe you have a point, but otherwise?
Why would everyone involved in satellites need to be in on it? Most of those people just get the data, they don't need to know where it's from, so long as the pseudo-system is sufficiently well-made to simulate a satellite system. As for the people who monitor that pseudo-system, why on earth would you tell them that they're in charge of a replacement for satellites? They don't need to know that. They just need to know, say, they're complementing it, or trying out a new idea... why whistleblow when you don't think you know anything newsworthy?

How many people do you think it takes to make a "sufficiently well-made" system that simulates thousands of satellites monitoring the whole planet in real time? And systems that appear to function exactly like they are supposed to function with a satellite, see for example how to align a satellite dish?

If the data from such systems is fake, do you think the people who get and analyze it would not realize after some time? If it's not, what could possibly simulate it? Balloons everywhere for example? Who launched them, where are them, how come nobody found about them?

No whistleblower, zero, nada in decades of satellite operations. Not a crack for more than 60 years in a global, international conspiracy. How do you explain that?

How many people, who made that system, would need to know that it was being used to help fake the existence of space travel, let alone connect that to the shape of the Earth?
You could hire a dozen or so scientists, invite them to a research facility comparing the possibilities, see if there was anything more efficient than a satellite system, have them put together a few possible models, then bid them goodbye keeping their schematics, leaving them content in the knowledge they helped convince the government of the worth of satellite travel. Then commission or build what would be required, just telling the workers to get on with their jobs, and there you go. Most people who work on projects don't ever know every little detail, especially when the government or some private agency is involved, because why would they need to?
Stratellites in position, basic signals being sent out in specific directions, a line of code in the stratellite to delay the signal strictly on that end so that it appears to be sent from further up... That might mean maybe one or two people involved in the construction to help make it fake, but even then you could spin a story about it helping to work with the existing satellite system and thus it's best if it appears to be up there, and you end up with a very simple situation.

Why are there no well-known whistleblowers? Because nobody cares.
Look at Snowden. Huge, well-known whistleblower, exposed a lot of governmental systems, mostly a household name, but maybe 30% of people could tell you even the barest details of what he did by now and even fewer even tried to do anything about it, and that was dealing with huge-scale government surveillance. If someone came out and, rather talking about how your every move was being spied on, mentioned a couple of dry, technical oddities in how the vastly complex GPS system worked in this weird little corner of Utah specifically, why do you think that would make any kind of splash? Why would they even want to talk about it? Why would they have any reason to think what they did was in any way significant?