Danny Faulkner's Malicious Flat Earth God and Reified Moon

By Faulkner's standard, the globe earth god is even more malevolent

I won’t get to Faulkner’s (missing) FE history for a while. Instead, I want to focus on the plethora of assumptions, faulty conclusions, misrepresentations, conflations, deflections, emotional appeals, contradictions, baseless claims, and other errors and fallacies that riddle the first chapter of Falling Flat. It saddens me that solid Christian leaders and pastors have not corrected Faulkner for his flawed rhetoric, and I’m even more saddened that Falling Flat is the conservative Christian’s “go to” refutation of Flat Earth.

Yet, I think I know why.

I’ve mentioned in earlier posts that I am a copywriter. A golden rule of copywriting is that buyers don’t make decisions based on logic. Instead, they make decisions because of their emotions. A consumer wants a product because it fulfills some desire, whether status, identity, FOMO, loyalty, gratification, prestige, security, happiness, comfort, or another driving influence. Facts are necessary to a buyer, but only to support the decision they’ve already made. 

The world system has sold us an emotional ball of goods. Since birth, empty philosophy has enamored us with spinning earth globes and planetary solar system models. We’ve cheered as they televised the story of man’s “greatest” accomplishment: astronaut heroes landing on the moon. We cried as we watched the space shuttle Challenger explode on screen in American classrooms, allegedly killing seven crew members, including teacher Christa McAuliffe.¹

Whether we admit it or not, Americans are emotionally attached to the globe. No one wants their ball taken away from them. When challenged with an alternate view of the nature of the earth, many will not even bother to investigate the claims. 

But some do, usually to debunk Flat Earth once and for all. When they try, something unexpected happens — even Danny Faulkner recognizes it.

On Page 13 of Falling Flat, Faulkner identifies two kinds of people seeking to debunk the Flat Earth. The first group “are frustrated that they can’t seem to answer many of the arguments” of flat earthers. The second group emerges thinking perhaps, “We’ve all been fed a whopping lie about the true shape of the earth.”

Flat Earth evidence is compelling because truth is compelling.

Yet, Faulkner wants to fill in the gap and give the frustrated seekers the answers they need to hold on to their globe. Because of the emotional investment of the seeker, Faulkner doesn’t have to prove anything. All he has to do is provide enough information to support what they have already accepted as true. 

In the process, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Faulkner makes many logical errors. Sadly, if someone reads Falling Flat to support their belief system, they might easily overlook the multiple errors. Still, others genuinely seeking truth might trust Faulkner because he is a respected creation scientist.

However, a careful analysis of Faulkner’s rhetoric reveals that he is not speaking according to wisdom and knowledge. I’m not making this claim lightly. I will be supporting it over the next couple of posts. Eventually, I will return to Faulkner’s gaping hole of missing data when presenting the history of Biblical Cosmology. But today, I want to go lunar and talk about some claims Faulkner makes about the moon and the God of the moon.

This installment is the sixth in my review of Danny Faulkner’s Falling Flat.

If you have not read the first five installments, you can access them here:

1. “Falling Flat” by Danny Faulkner: A Cover-to-Cover Review

2. Top Twelve Flat Earth Claims to Hold Faulkner's Feet to the Fire

3. Does Danny Faulkner Rewrite Flat Earth History from Page One?

4. Danny Faulkner Accidentally Admits Flat Earth Requires a Creator

5. Danny Faulkner’s Contrived Flat Earth

Now, let’s explore Faulkner’s moon misrepresentations.

Aristotle’s Reified Moon

In the Cover-to-Cover review, I mentioned the subtitle of Faulkner’s book, A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims. Interestingly, inside the book, on the “running head” or odd-numbered pages, Faulkner presents an updated subtitle: A Scientific Refutation of Flat Earth Claims. That notches up the standard. We should expect to see Faulkner use sound reason, empirical data, and the scientific method to refute Flat Earth claims. Yet, so far in the book, Faulkner takes another route. I’ll start by addressing a claim about Aristotle’s moon, which begins on Page 19.

Faulkner introduces On the Heavens by Aristotle. At first, he explains Aristotle’s “clear reasons” for believing in a spherical moon. Yet, his language shifts as though Aristotle’s position is his position, not surprisingly because it is the modern cosmological position. Yet, is it true?

Faulkner explains Aristotle’s model and concludes, “The phases of the moon, and especially the curved terminator, only make sense if the moon is spherical.”

Here, Faulkner presents a False Dilemma (Either-Or fallacy) — assuming that there is only one explanation for the moon’s phases, ignoring the possibility of other modalities. This statement also assumes that Faulkner is all-knowing and has explored all other options. We find later that Faulkner contradicts himself by presenting an alternate view, which happens to be the biblical view, and sadly, he mocks it. We will explore his contradiction shortly.

Let’s look at three additional claims Faulkner makes about the moon. 

1. “If the moon is a sphere, then half of the moon will be lit by the sun.” Here, Faulkner Begs the Question and assumes that the moon reflects light from the sun. The statement proves nothing. Plus, by saying that half the moon is lit (at all times), Faulkner reifies it, making it something we do not witness on earth or see in the Bible.
   
   Let’s look at another claim.
   
   

2. “Lunar phases are caused by the changing geometry of the moon and sun with respect to the earth.” Whether spoken by Aristotle or Faulkner, the statement is a False Cause fallacy. It assumes something unproven, while ignoring contradictory evidence and the Bible. But you might object: This is the model they teach at school. Shall we appeal to an expert? That, too, is fallacious reasoning. Again, you might object: Everyone knows that’s how the moon works. That thought process is an Appeal to Consensus fallacy. What we need is solid evidence to support the claim.
   
   Let’s examine some real-world evidence that contradicts the geometry/reflection narrative. This evidence is available for anyone to view monthly. I encourage you to start watching the moon and sun in the sky during and around gibbous moons. You will observe that the angles of the sun and the moon do not line up in a way that consistently supports the Aristotelian narrative.
   
   Here is an image of the moon that I took myself. The arrow pointing up demonstrates the true position of where the sun is shining toward the moon. The large moon next to the real moon is added to the picture to show the moon’s phase the day I took the photo. The arrow pointing down is a reified model of where the sun should be if Aristotle and Faulkner are correct in saying that “lunar phases are caused by the changing geometry of the moon and sun.”

   

   Look for the evidence yourself.
   
   Finally, I’ll consider one more claim by Faulkner concerning the moon. I could share more, but these three demonstrate the point well enough.
   
   

3. “When the moon is in the same part of the sky as the sun, the lit half of the moon faces toward the sun, so the moon’s unlit half faces the earth.” This claim is wholly unsupported and Begs the Question. No one has viewed the moon from between the sun and the moon save God and the angels. Faulkner and Aristotle only speculate that it is lit. Aristotle’s theories about the moon are nothing more than unproven claims. Faulkner should not be using them as scientific evidence.

If you put these claims together, you have a reified moon, an artificial concept of the moon that is made to appear real, so real that Faulkner treats it as fact. At best, these ideas are theory. But they prove nothing. It is all conjecture. These claims can be proven false with monthly evidence and the Bible. 

Flat Earth Moon

Let’s see what else Faulkner has to say about the moon.

Faulkner claims,

Interestingly, modern flat-earthers generally deny that the moon is a sphere, insisting that it is a disk. It is not clear why they think this. For one thing, it leaves them with no explanation for lunar phases.

First, Faulkner admits to making a general claim. I don’t know the general view among flat earthers concerning the moon’s shape. Nor do I make any claims about it. Yet, I know it doesn’t matter for this discussion. As mentioned in earlier posts, Faulkner claims to address a Biblical Flat Earth, aka Biblical Cosmology. Based on the Bible, here’s what we know about the moon for sure: 

• God designed the moon to give light on earth (not heaven).

• God gave the moon its ordinances (phases) to rule the night, keep time, and order days and festivals.

• God made moonlight different than sunlight, giving it a glory of its own.

• God testifies that the moon has its own light.

• God never mentions the moon reflecting the sun.

If we start there, we might discover how the moon works. It is better to trust in God than in pagan philosophers for our understanding of the cosmos. 

The Bible doesn’t address the shape of the moon. Instead, it addresses the moon’s nature and purpose. Faulkner also claims that the biblical moon has no explanation for lunar phases. I’ll address this claim in a minute. 

Spherical Moon, Spherical Earth?

After spending much time discussing the sphericity of the moon, Faulkner switches gears to show that the moon’s shape is irrelevant to the discussion of the earth’s shape. I suspect he spent so much time on the moon because he wants to keep the reified model in the minds of his audience — and to take a few unwarranted and emotional jabs at biblical flat-earthers (and their God). 

Faulkner writes, “Besides, what if the moon is spherical? Does that automatically mean the earth is spherical too? Apparently, the flat-earthers think so.”

On what evidence do you base that claim, Faulkner? Will you cite a source? The statement is pregnant with error.

To answer the second question, NO, a spherical moon does not mean a spherical earth. Nor is it warranted to say that flat-earthers think it does. This rhetoric is a Misrepresentation or Straw Man fallacy. There is no reason to assume the moon’s shape in the first place. We see it as it is. Let’s leave it there. It is round with phases. It could be a disk, concave, convex, spherical, or a projection. If it were a sphere, that would not change the shape of the earth. Claiming that biblical flat-earthers think so is not a good look for Faulkner. 

Ironically, globers have said to me: “If God made the moon and planets spherical, why would He make the earth flat?” For Faulkner to project this idea onto flat-earthers without evidence is a Misrepresentation and False Attribution fallacy. It is NOT a common belief among flat-earthers. Yet, it is common among globers to take this position, as demonstrated in this meme. 

Later, Faulkner explains that Aristotle assumed the earth was spherical because he believed the moon was spherical — and labels it an argument by analogy. Again, Faulkner projects this idea onto the Flat Earth community. “I suspect modern flat-earthers are employing the similar argument by analogy: they know the earth is flat and round, so the moon must be flat and round, too.”

Preposterous and unsupported suspicion.

“Either way,” says Faulkner, “this argument by analogy isn’t anything more than confirmation of what one already believes.”

Is Faulkner speaking about himself and globers now — and his reified moon?

But things take a turn for the worse for Faulkner as he brings God into the discussion. 

False Moon God

On Page 20, after Faulkner claims that flat-earthers have no explanation for lunar phases, he finally speaks some truth about Biblical Flat Earth (Biblical Cosmology) — while at the same time, directly contradicting his claim that we have no explanation for lunar phases.

Faulkner writes, “They claim that the moon produces its own light, so it doesn’t reflect the light of the sun.”

That’s correct, Faulkner. Precisely as the Holy Spirit told us in the Bible.

Faulkner then explains how his convex “Moon in My Room” device simulates moon phases with lights and AA batteries. Of course, writes Faulkner, it is “merely an imperfect simulation of the moon’s real phases.” Do you mean of your reified phases?

Here’s where the eyes bulge, the jaw drops, and the neck extends in astonishment.

Faulkner writes:

Why would God have made a flat, round moon that varies in its own light in a manner that strongly implies that the moon is a sphere illuminated by the sun? Do flat-earthers think that God is so malicious as to make the world in such a way that we so easily could be led astray on this?

Whoa!

Wow!

What?

These questions are so off the charts that I feel I am creating a straw man argument by sharing them, but I am NOT. I’ll even include a screenshot.

Malicious God?

Oh, but consider the irony.

If the Flat Earth God is malicious for deceiving us about the moon, what of the globe God? I’ll get back to that in a moment.

First, I want to break down the questions, starting with the first.

• “Why would God…”
  
  Who are you, O man, to question God? Where were you when He made the moon? God is in the heavens, and He will do as He pleases.

  
  

• “Have made a flat, round moon…”
  
  Straw Man and Stereotype fallacy. Who claims God made a flat, round moon? I’m a biblical flat-earther, and I didn’t make that claim. Faulkner admitted that not everyone holds this position — and he failed to reveal the names of anyone who did.
  
  

• “That varies in its own light…”
  
  God made the moonlight to vary daily and shine forth its peculiar glory on the sons of men, to give light on the earth, and show times and seasons.
  
  

• “In a manner that strongly implies that the moon is a sphere illuminated by the sun?”
  
  At least Faulkner admits that the moon’s sphericity and the sun’s reflection are only implied. He leaves room for doubt. Perhaps he realizes it is merely a theory. I’ve provided evidence that contradicts the illumination by the sun model. Now, I will provide evidence against the claim that the moon presents itself in a way that “strongly implies” that the moon is a sphere illuminated by the sun. It is only anecdotal evidence, but it is worth considering.
  
  As a single mother, I homeschooled my daughter starting in Kindergarten. For many years, we used Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum, which was very helpful for a single mom since it is primarily self-directed by the student. Sadly, ACE was not on board with Biblical Cosmology, nor had I understood God’s Flat Earth myself.
  
  One day, after a science lesson about the moon, my daughter replied, “I’ll never look at the moon the same again.” The implication was that now she understood the moon was a sphere with one half perpetually lit. It was not manifestly evident to her before that lesson. She had to be indoctrinated into that belief. What might happen if we abandoned Aristotelian philosophy altogether? What might our children discover by curiosity? Oh, how pagan thought has infiltrated our Christian education.

So the question remains: Is the spherical nature of the moon so obvious? Or has it been indoctrinated into us by pagan philosophy?

Let’s evaluate the next question, which impugns the nature and motives of God.

Malicious Moon God

This next question by Faulkner is grievous to me on many levels. Let’s break it down.

• “Do flat-earthers think that God is so malicious…” That is a Loaded Question fallacy. It assumes our position makes God malicious. I don't accept that premise, nor would any biblical flat-earther. Plus, using a term like malicious incites emotion and could be considered an Appeal to Emotion fallacy. It evokes an emotional reaction rather than a rational discussion.
  

• “As to make the world in such a way that we so easily could be led astray on this?” Again, Loaded Question and Appeal to Emotion. Assuming God would do something to lead His children astray is an oxymoron. God is truth. This kind of language provokes outrage, rather than logically proving the point. Furthermore, it can be turned on the speaker, making it a Self-contradiction or Special Pleading fallacy. Let’s examine that now.
  
  

Faulkner uses strong language to impugn God’s nature if we live on a Flat Earth. Yet, Faulkner fails to take his own medicine. If he applied the same standard to his globalist system, it would soon be evident that his God is much more malicious than the FE God, perhaps even malevolent. 

Malevolent Globe God

Let’s apply some of Faulkner’s logic to his position, starting with the sun and the moon, since these have been part of this recent discussion. 

Faulkner maintains that it is self-evident that the moon reflects the sun and is spherical. According to Faulkner’s logic, claiming something different makes God a malicious deceiver. 

Yet, what of Faulkner’s sun and moon? Did God create them in a way that would deceive our senses? According to Faulkner’s logic, yes. 

There is no visual evidence to contradict the claim I am about to make. 

The sun and moon appear to be the same size in the sky.

Was God so malevolent as to make the sun and moon appear the same size, when in Faulkner’s reality [reified reality] the sun is 400X larger than the moon? And since the sun and the moon appear smaller than the earth, God must have malevolently deceived us into thinking the earth was larger than both — since Faulkner’s sun is allegedly 109 times larger than his reified earth. 

What a deceptive God we serve!

Even more malevolent is Faulkner’s God for making it appear to His children that:

• The horizon is flat

• Seas are level

• The horizon rises to eye level

• Gas pressure requires a container

• The earth doesn’t move

• The sun, moon, and stars move above the earth

• Water always finds its level

Will you take your own medicine, Faulkner?

Indeed, God has made His creation plain to see.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

The globe god is not the God of the Bible. Faulkner is dangerously close to blaspheming YHWH and His testimony about His creation. Plus, he has maligned Christians who believe in Biblical Cosmology.

Let us all take heed. 

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

May God have mercy on Danny Faulkner, bring him to repentance, and help him to escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

You can access the next installment here: Faked Space: Faulkner Thought of It First.

Comments are behind a paywall to avoid trolls. But feel free to message me here:

1. Here’s a video to challenge the Challenger narrative: Level with Me.