I consider myself a skeptic, and not like the typical 'subscription-to-skeptics-magazine' type of skeptic. I think most of the people that identify as skeptical are truly only critical of traditionalism while just as blindly accepting of modern secularism. They scoff at an intelligent designer, for instance, but swallow abiogenesis as fact despite every proof to the contrary.
So what I am saying is that I would be willing to believe absolutely anything, or trash any long held belief, if presented with convincing evidence.
I have looked into flat earth before, and found it unconvincing. As FH said, the observable evidence points to a globe. Human witnesses have seen the globe, and I don't find convincing motive for all of them to lie and for thousands of images and videos to be faked. Those that have traveled to the south pole can testify that it is indeed a point in the middle of Antarctica, and not a 150,000 mile long border of a disk; and I don't find convincing motive for all of them to lie and fabricate evidence either. I also don't see that a flat earth is necessary for Biblical interpretation.
However, an argument for a geocentric model of the universe is much more interesting to me, because of the personal philosophies of those that have tried to disprove it, and the many failures of important experiments attempting to prove that the Earth at all moves.
Michelson and Morley's failure, and their reasons for needing success are a great beginning. Einstein's initial theory, created as a band-aid for their colossal failure, and his own reasons for needing to debunk geocentrism, follow. Then quantum theorists, as well as other massive experimental failures. The very expensive failure of NASA's Gravity probe B is even more shocking in my view than the simpler yet just as troubling failure of the Pioneer probe.
At best, even Einstein himself admitted that his theories couldn't and weren't meant to prove heliocentrism, but rather provide a framework where a 'center' of the universe was only relative.
So what I am saying is that I would be willing to believe absolutely anything, or trash any long held belief, if presented with convincing evidence.
I have looked into flat earth before, and found it unconvincing. As FH said, the observable evidence points to a globe. Human witnesses have seen the globe, and I don't find convincing motive for all of them to lie and for thousands of images and videos to be faked. Those that have traveled to the south pole can testify that it is indeed a point in the middle of Antarctica, and not a 150,000 mile long border of a disk; and I don't find convincing motive for all of them to lie and fabricate evidence either. I also don't see that a flat earth is necessary for Biblical interpretation.
However, an argument for a geocentric model of the universe is much more interesting to me, because of the personal philosophies of those that have tried to disprove it, and the many failures of important experiments attempting to prove that the Earth at all moves.
Michelson and Morley's failure, and their reasons for needing success are a great beginning. Einstein's initial theory, created as a band-aid for their colossal failure, and his own reasons for needing to debunk geocentrism, follow. Then quantum theorists, as well as other massive experimental failures. The very expensive failure of NASA's Gravity probe B is even more shocking in my view than the simpler yet just as troubling failure of the Pioneer probe.
At best, even Einstein himself admitted that his theories couldn't and weren't meant to prove heliocentrism, but rather provide a framework where a 'center' of the universe was only relative.
.