[Disgraced_Shield]

What shapes are other celestial bodies? Moons, suns, planets....etc?

If they are spherical, why is the earth different than everything else? What physical laws prevented the earth from forming into a sphere like everybody else?

If they too are flat, how come the observable surface of each and every disc we can see is facing us dead-on?

- Why do none appear canted, sideways, or facing away? Even of the handful of celestial bodies we can see with telescopes from the surface of the earth, they're all 'looking' right at us. There'd have to be some serious faith in a geocentric model of the universe to support other celestial bodies being flat.

Any thoughts? To me, in order to legitimately justify a flat-earth model, you'd have to come up with a really, really watertight explanation as to why everything else is round and we aren't, or why all the other flat things in the universe are staring us dead-on in the face.

Please submit all explanations written on the back of a $20 bill, and PM for the address to mail it to. 

[Disgraced_Shield]

Okay, I was kidding about the $20. You can stick your answers here please.

[markjo]

What shapes are other celestial bodies? Moons, suns, planets....etc?

If they are spherical, why is the earth different than everything else? What physical laws prevented the earth from forming into a sphere like everybody else?

The standard response is that the earth is not a celestial body, therefore it shouldn't necessarily be obligated to follow all of the same rules as celestial bodies.

[Disgraced_Shield]

What shapes are other celestial bodies? Moons, suns, planets....etc?

If they are spherical, why is the earth different than everything else? What physical laws prevented the earth from forming into a sphere like everybody else?

The standard response is that the earth is not a celestial body, therefore it shouldn't necessarily be obligated to follow all of the same rules as celestial bodies.

Interesting notion.

That begs the questions: What the hell is it? How was it formed, and why was it formed differently than literally every observable planet, star, and moon out there? How, as a non-celestial body, did we rate getting a moon of our own? If the formation of such a thing as a 'non-celestial body' like a disc-shaped earth can happen once, why hasn't it happened more times? Why can't we see more?

I don't buy that theory at all. It's a cop-out.

You'd be admitting that every other body out there is a globe-shape, then manufacturing something like "But the earth is different" for the sole purpose of keeping a belief alive?

No-go. I don't accept that.
And not because I'm a denial-wracked government shill that's too stupid to hold a conversation, but because the basic building blocks of logic fail to uphold something like that.

[geckothegeek]

What shapes are other celestial bodies? Moons, suns, planets....etc?

If they are spherical, why is the earth different than everything else? What physical laws prevented the earth from forming into a sphere like everybody else?

The standard response is that the earth is not a celestial body, therefore it shouldn't necessarily be obligated to follow all of the same rules as celestial bodies.

The standard answers are:
"The earth is not a planet"
and "It's flat, because it is special"
and  "It's special because it is different"
and "It is the center of the universe''
and "Every thing revolves around it."
and "It's stationary and doesn't revolve around any thing."

As for the other questions, such as "Why ?"......I haven't seen any answers.

[Saddam Hussein]

A question like this is really only a valid objection to FET if we rely on the presumption of RET that the earth is just one of many planets, and its structure and movement can be directly compared to these other planets.  As a planet, it fits into a certain mold, and so if we notice anything that seems to break the mold, we instinctively say, "Hey, that can't be right."  But FET doesn't rely on this presumption, and so to question the earth's characteristics based on comparisons to celestial bodies that it really has very little in common with is ultimately an arbitrary exercise.  The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

I have no idea how the universe was formed.  I'd be interested to see if anyone has any theories on that.

[Disgraced_Shield]

A question like this is really only a valid objection to FET if we rely on the presumption of RET that the earth is just one of many planets, and its structure and movement can be directly compared to these other planets.  As a planet, it fits into a certain mold, and so if we notice anything that seems to break the mold, we instinctively say, "Hey, that can't be right."  But FET doesn't rely on this presumption, and so to question the earth's characteristics based on comparisons to celestial bodies that it really has very little in common with is ultimately an arbitrary exercise.  The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

I have no idea how the universe was formed.  I'd be interested to see if anyone has any theories on that.

Excellent response, thank you. The only think I can pick on is this:

The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

The pluralization of 'stars' 'moons' and 'comets' and the assertion that the earth is unlike EVERYTHING else. Planets differ from moons, comets and stars. The earth would be different from planets.
Which isn't too far out of the realm of possibility I suppose- or wouldn't be- if we could observe other, similar bodies.

Stars formed. Bajillions of them. Planets formed. Bajillions of them. Moons formed. Bajillions of them. One single disc-shaped earth though? I have a really hard time swallowing that- especially since the earth exhibits many of the characteristics of other planets. We'd be similar...but completely different.

[Fletcher]

In my opinion the idea of having a flat earth, and therefore saying that it is indeed special/different/unique, implies some sort of creator. Some kind of entity who, perhaps long after the universe took shape, created this haven for life to develop. But then again,  who knows and how could we possibly ever find out?
We're lacking the big picture, so we have to do with observing little parts in this huge clockwork and speculate why that little part behaves the way it does and whether that behaviour fits the RE or FE.

[Hoppy]

A question like this is really only a valid objection to FET if we rely on the presumption of RET that the earth is just one of many planets, and its structure and movement can be directly compared to these other planets.  As a planet, it fits into a certain mold, and so if we notice anything that seems to break the mold, we instinctively say, "Hey, that can't be right."  But FET doesn't rely on this presumption, and so to question the earth's characteristics based on comparisons to celestial bodies that it really has very little in common with is ultimately an arbitrary exercise.  The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

I have no idea how the universe was formed.  I'd be interested to see if anyone has any theories on that.

God forming the the universe is much more plausible than an explosion creating the earth.

[markjo]

God forming the the universe is much more plausible than an explosion creating the earth.

How plausible is God creating an explosion that created the earth?