I used to use this argument (the exact words) early on when debating, until I realized that what I was doing was making a positive claim FOR my opponent, when *I* was then responsible for defending. In a formal debate, one should never make your opponent’s positions or claims FOR them, even if you’re making a statement that refutes or rebuts their position. Always force THEM to make their case and support it with evidence. THEN you can rebut their claim with opposing evidence. IOW... you should be able to steel man your opponent’s claims better than they can, BUT you must WAIT until THEY make the first move.
“We see too far...” means that we presuppose the globe FOR THEM, in order to use THEIR MATH and their rhetoric to nullify their claim.
What I have turned to instead, is to point out (with photos) and our common sense experience, that no matter the altitude (measured above sea level) one is, the horizon (where the sky appears to meet the ground or sea) is horizontal as far as the eye can see. As far as we can see, is of course dependent on weather conditions and any objects in the distance that are higher than your eye level, but appear small because they are far away. A tree line, for example, consists of trees possibly 20-50 feet tall, but because they’re 10 miles away, meld into the horizon line. The point is, the HORIZONTAL HORIZON WE SEE, AT ANY AND ALL DISTANCES, is not a geometric, solid, edge of a sphere, acting like a hill getting in the way of boats and buildings or whatever one thinks the edge of the curved earth is “hiding.” To say it simply: “The horizon is not earth curve.”
The globe believer, of course, says and believes that the horizon IS earth curve; we just can’t see it because the earth is soooooo big. They only have calculations and formulas and explanations to prove that the horizontal horizon we see, isn’t what we’re really seeing. The only thing they have to support their claim that the horizon is not horizontal, but curved, is the assumption that the radius of the earth is 3,959 miles. (You showed the R value in your curve calculator illustration.) All i need to ask my opponent is: “What is the radius of the earth, and how was that value MEASURED and validated?
The vast majority of people (even hard core globers) don’t know how their radius was measured. They just know that “the Greeks figured it out 2,000 years ago. Some will say that Eratosthenes measured it with sticks and shadows, or a well and a stick 500 miles away. But measuring the angles of shadows from the sun on the ground... requires that the ground be flat, and the sticks that are 500 miles away be 90° perpendicular to the ground, and parallel with each other. You need a flat earth to measure angles on the earth.
Anyway.... the best argument we can make is: I see a horizontal horizon... and leave it at that. Then wait for the opponent to make the positive claim that what you’re NOT seeing, is the geometric curve edge of the sphere earth. Then ask them to kindly prove the existence of something that we can not see.
Let THEM bring up the curve calculator and the 8”/mile² formula. THIS is where you can steel man their argument and destroy it at the same time. The more accurate formula (and one you should memorize) that supports their claim of a geometric sphere edge horizon is: 1.22 miles, times the square root of the observer’s height in feet. That’s where the sphere edge that boats “go over” should START. Don’t bother with “missing curvature” anymore. Just use this Modus Tollens logical consistency argument:
If the earth radius is 3,959 miles, the solid, geometric earth curve horizon can be NO FARTHER THAN 1.22 miles times the square root of the observers height in feet. If we view the horizon we see is at ANY distance FARTHER than the geometric limitations required by the math, then the earth radius is NOT 3,959 miles and the horizon is not physical earth curve.
Every single long distance photo where the distance to the horizon can be measured with landmarks and the altitude of the viewer is known, now becomes a Black Swan to their “earth curve” argument. The key... is to let THEM make their arguments first. Don’t make it for them.
Wow! Thanks for schooling me on how to debate the FE. I hope I don't ever have to do a public engagement like that. Yet, logic is surely helpful. Do you engage in FE Debates? Have you ever seen a person switch sides when pushed to logical conclusions? I know a globe pastor — who made this claim about the horizon. We agreed on the supposed horizon calculation (as you mentioned). When I presented him evidence that falsified his claim, he refused to admit it. Completely bizarre. I'd love to see you debate him. Would you be interested in something like this if I could set it up. I will PM you part of the conversation.
You’re welcome… but not so much “schooling” as just pointing out things I’ve observed over the years of facebook and chat forum debating atheists… and now theistic heliocentrists. I don’t do organized debates or talks. I’ll bicker back and forth with the bots, trolls and heliocentric fundamentalists now and then, just to see what the current argument is. But that’s just to keep in practice.
The latest argument(s) are: You don’t have a working map; Show me your flat earth model; Show me the flat earth measurement ‘data’; and “The earth pizza is dead. The 24 hour sun in Antarctica killed it.”
I engaged with my pastor in 2023 and even set up some private bible study sessions for a few weeks. (Always rushed, never enough time to sit around, drink coffee and shoot the breeze about the topic.) Back then, however, I realize now that I was also talking about how the Bible seemed to be changing like some spiritual, supernatural Mandela effect. I’m still curious about that… but it’s not directly FE related. So front loading my pastor with some of the feast of nonsense probably wasn’t a good idea.
Lesson learned.
I think one on one, or small groups who volunteer to stand around and listen to you/us is the way to go this year. If you want to really know the truth about anything, I believe you/we need to pray that God will send the right people to us (by whatever means) and that we would have the humility and wisdom to know when you’ve been sent someone that God wants you to learn something from. Gone are the days of idols, mega pastors, talking heads and “science communicators”. (I’m looking at you Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku and Brian Cox.
As for debating your pastor friend… probably wouldn’t work. He’d feel cornered and he might not feel capable of it. Maybe if he has some questions, we could answer them for him. But if all he has is straw men questions about how “flat earth works” then he’s not ready.
Keep asking him: “Is that true?” “How do you know that’s true?” Where do we get absolute truth?” IF he doesn’t know the scriptural answers to those questions, then debating him on the nature of the Truth of Creation is pointless.
Bullet One: “We see too far.”
I used to use this argument (the exact words) early on when debating, until I realized that what I was doing was making a positive claim FOR my opponent, when *I* was then responsible for defending. In a formal debate, one should never make your opponent’s positions or claims FOR them, even if you’re making a statement that refutes or rebuts their position. Always force THEM to make their case and support it with evidence. THEN you can rebut their claim with opposing evidence. IOW... you should be able to steel man your opponent’s claims better than they can, BUT you must WAIT until THEY make the first move.
“We see too far...” means that we presuppose the globe FOR THEM, in order to use THEIR MATH and their rhetoric to nullify their claim.
What I have turned to instead, is to point out (with photos) and our common sense experience, that no matter the altitude (measured above sea level) one is, the horizon (where the sky appears to meet the ground or sea) is horizontal as far as the eye can see. As far as we can see, is of course dependent on weather conditions and any objects in the distance that are higher than your eye level, but appear small because they are far away. A tree line, for example, consists of trees possibly 20-50 feet tall, but because they’re 10 miles away, meld into the horizon line. The point is, the HORIZONTAL HORIZON WE SEE, AT ANY AND ALL DISTANCES, is not a geometric, solid, edge of a sphere, acting like a hill getting in the way of boats and buildings or whatever one thinks the edge of the curved earth is “hiding.” To say it simply: “The horizon is not earth curve.”
The globe believer, of course, says and believes that the horizon IS earth curve; we just can’t see it because the earth is soooooo big. They only have calculations and formulas and explanations to prove that the horizontal horizon we see, isn’t what we’re really seeing. The only thing they have to support their claim that the horizon is not horizontal, but curved, is the assumption that the radius of the earth is 3,959 miles. (You showed the R value in your curve calculator illustration.) All i need to ask my opponent is: “What is the radius of the earth, and how was that value MEASURED and validated?
The vast majority of people (even hard core globers) don’t know how their radius was measured. They just know that “the Greeks figured it out 2,000 years ago. Some will say that Eratosthenes measured it with sticks and shadows, or a well and a stick 500 miles away. But measuring the angles of shadows from the sun on the ground... requires that the ground be flat, and the sticks that are 500 miles away be 90° perpendicular to the ground, and parallel with each other. You need a flat earth to measure angles on the earth.
Anyway.... the best argument we can make is: I see a horizontal horizon... and leave it at that. Then wait for the opponent to make the positive claim that what you’re NOT seeing, is the geometric curve edge of the sphere earth. Then ask them to kindly prove the existence of something that we can not see.
Let THEM bring up the curve calculator and the 8”/mile² formula. THIS is where you can steel man their argument and destroy it at the same time. The more accurate formula (and one you should memorize) that supports their claim of a geometric sphere edge horizon is: 1.22 miles, times the square root of the observer’s height in feet. That’s where the sphere edge that boats “go over” should START. Don’t bother with “missing curvature” anymore. Just use this Modus Tollens logical consistency argument:
If the earth radius is 3,959 miles, the solid, geometric earth curve horizon can be NO FARTHER THAN 1.22 miles times the square root of the observers height in feet. If we view the horizon we see is at ANY distance FARTHER than the geometric limitations required by the math, then the earth radius is NOT 3,959 miles and the horizon is not physical earth curve.
Every single long distance photo where the distance to the horizon can be measured with landmarks and the altitude of the viewer is known, now becomes a Black Swan to their “earth curve” argument. The key... is to let THEM make their arguments first. Don’t make it for them.
I’m excited to read your review of Danny’s book.
Wow! Thanks for schooling me on how to debate the FE. I hope I don't ever have to do a public engagement like that. Yet, logic is surely helpful. Do you engage in FE Debates? Have you ever seen a person switch sides when pushed to logical conclusions? I know a globe pastor — who made this claim about the horizon. We agreed on the supposed horizon calculation (as you mentioned). When I presented him evidence that falsified his claim, he refused to admit it. Completely bizarre. I'd love to see you debate him. Would you be interested in something like this if I could set it up. I will PM you part of the conversation.
You’re welcome… but not so much “schooling” as just pointing out things I’ve observed over the years of facebook and chat forum debating atheists… and now theistic heliocentrists. I don’t do organized debates or talks. I’ll bicker back and forth with the bots, trolls and heliocentric fundamentalists now and then, just to see what the current argument is. But that’s just to keep in practice.
The latest argument(s) are: You don’t have a working map; Show me your flat earth model; Show me the flat earth measurement ‘data’; and “The earth pizza is dead. The 24 hour sun in Antarctica killed it.”
I engaged with my pastor in 2023 and even set up some private bible study sessions for a few weeks. (Always rushed, never enough time to sit around, drink coffee and shoot the breeze about the topic.) Back then, however, I realize now that I was also talking about how the Bible seemed to be changing like some spiritual, supernatural Mandela effect. I’m still curious about that… but it’s not directly FE related. So front loading my pastor with some of the feast of nonsense probably wasn’t a good idea.
Lesson learned.
I think one on one, or small groups who volunteer to stand around and listen to you/us is the way to go this year. If you want to really know the truth about anything, I believe you/we need to pray that God will send the right people to us (by whatever means) and that we would have the humility and wisdom to know when you’ve been sent someone that God wants you to learn something from. Gone are the days of idols, mega pastors, talking heads and “science communicators”. (I’m looking at you Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku and Brian Cox.
As for debating your pastor friend… probably wouldn’t work. He’d feel cornered and he might not feel capable of it. Maybe if he has some questions, we could answer them for him. But if all he has is straw men questions about how “flat earth works” then he’s not ready.
Keep asking him: “Is that true?” “How do you know that’s true?” Where do we get absolute truth?” IF he doesn’t know the scriptural answers to those questions, then debating him on the nature of the Truth of Creation is pointless.