Respectfully I have to also disagree. Your notion on space balls is like looking at the round balls of a pool table and concluding the table is a sphere, it's like looking at the floodlights of a football field and supposing the field is also too a sphere.1. One has a belief in the Creator.
2. One uses other means, typically Science, to explain the mechanics of the universe.
1. One would have to conclude the Creator to be deceitful. The most apparent celestial object within view is the Moon with obvious round shape and obvious shadows created by other round celestial objects. With the advent of telescopes, man has noticed all other celestial objects as round. The Creator represents Truth and Order, not Chaos. There is no Order when one celestial object is flat and all others are not. Thus a rational conclusion that Order does not exist if the earth has a shape inconsistent with other celestial objects.
2. The rules that govern our world must be uniform throughout the Universe. This is the first tenant of Physics. If ice reduces friction today it must also reduce friction tomorrow. The rules cannot change from day to day nor from location to location. There are no flat celestial objects. The rules must apply to every celestial object. Furthermore there are no apparent objects on Earth that are naturally flat. There are no flat animals, plants, mountains, rocks, elevations... A patch of ground might be flat in appearance , but the matter it consists of is not.
There is no Magic. Magic is slight of hand. It is deception.. It is a lie.
Neither the tenants of Order (God) nor the tenants of Rationality and Logic rely on deception.
Deception hits those opposed to Order the most....
It's a logical fallacy, supposing the shape of terra firma with your eyes only.
How can you or anyone for that fact pre-suppose the sun or moon are a sphere when we have only ever seen one side of said celestial bodies?
You are using inductive thesis to conclude the premise of your points – complete fallacious reasoning. It’s like saying the sky is blue because we have a large ocean above us. Neither my sky full of water, nor your premises on comparing the earth shape to blurry lights can be proven or disproven with demonstrable, empirical science.
Lights in the sky, or planets as you like to call them are observed through a telescope as "lights in the sky" that’s it. Have you ever observed the aforementioned celestial bodies through a telescope? Look absolutely nothing like a sphere.
Something like that ...
Absolueltey nothing like a sphere.
You and the rest of the psudosientific community are pre-supposing so much inductive theory it's quite ridiculous!
Please can you provide actual science to back up your claims? To my knowledge, even astrophysicists admit that a curve can't be observed from any height humans are capable of reaching (other than astronaughties of course).A patch of ground might be flat in appearance , but the matter it consists of is not.
The ground is always observed as completely flat, even their Pythagorean mathemagic of 7.9 inches per mile-squared fails dramatically when actually applied to any landmass.
NO OBSERVABLE CURVE.
I have provided numerous proofs on this matter in previous posts. If you can take anything from the whole entirety of this forum it’s that the mainstream narrative is NEVER correct and none of their theory can actually be proven.
If you take the time to read the blow posts instead of appealing to the general primary school consensus of space balls, hopefully you will gain more of an understanding of their utter BS.
Geometry: Proof of the Plane.
Geometry: Proof of the Plane.
Geocentricism - We are the Centre of the Universe
The earth is objectivley level, how can you debate something that is objectivley true?