The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)

Earth is flat, so there must be a God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Edlvsjd has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 93701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

Earth is flat, so there logically must be a Creator.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for instigating this debate.
If there's something this site needs more of, it's debates about god and the earth being flat.
People turn to this site for intellectual stimulation...well get ready for a stimulation platter.
Flat earth and god amount to a combination of boundless intellectual entertainment.

*Resolution*

The mismatch between the debate tagline and Pro's round 1 sentence, the lack of definitions for any terms used, and the troll-ish undertones of this "resolution" require me to provide definitions and burden assessment 1st round.


Definitions

earth - the surface of the planet on which we live as distinct from the sky or the sea.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

flat - without hills.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


*Burden*

Pro, advancing a positive assertion, has the BoP to show that not only is the topography of the surface of the earth without hills, but that this concept is somehow itself a reason for the necessary existence of a universe creator/morality source.

Well, I reject that nonsense, and I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro

Although I expected more from my opponent in regards to the nature of this debate, I except his terms and definitions.

Earth that is flat
For my case I will be using two locations of earth that are without hill. first we'll start with Kansas. A study at Texas state university and Arizona state university concluded that Kansas is indeed flatter than a pancake, or without hills.
http://www.improbable.com...

There are several salt flat around the world, but I will discuss the biggest one. The Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia is 4,000 sq. miles of perfect, flat, earth.

Proof of a Creator

I'm sure my opponent may be wondering at this time about how this may prove a Creator. To that I pose a question : how is it, when the earth is (supposedly) spinning at 1,000 mph, do such large expanses exist that are perfectly flat? Logic and common sense tell us that any object spinning at such speed will exhibit centrifugal force, especially at the equator of a planet, and could never be flat. We can deduce from this that either:

A. The entire planet is relatively flat, or
B. Our creator has countered this centrifugal force, and flattened out these many areas of earth.

Either way, the outcome remains the same. A Creator exists, and, in these cases especially, has made the earth flat.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for accepting the terms and definitions.
Pro was unpleasantly surprised that I defined the terms in such a way...oh well.
It might be a good idea to include definitions for useful terms of the resolution.
Hence my actions.

*Earth That Is Flat*

Pro's attempt to indicate locations of the earth's surface without hills ironically proves these locations to have hills.
A hill is any "naturally raised area of land, not as high as a mountain."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

1. Pro's 1st location, Kansas, has a surface topography of .9997, with 1.0 being perfectly flat, according to Pro's own source.
Well, while .0003 may not seem like a lot, to a small creature, this would in fact be a hill...it's just a .0003 incline or raised area of land.
Look at Kansas's inherent incline from Pro's source...

This area is not without hills.

Also, a pancake is far from flat; upon close inspection, pancakes are generally plateau-like with craters strewn throughout its surface...hardly without raised areas.
Just check Pro's source on the matter.

2. Pro's 2nd location, The Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia, isn't flat at all, and it shouldn't surprise readers that Pro didn't include a source for this salt flat, because said source would be damning to Pro's point.
So I will.

"Using...Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, a team of scientists has found that Earth's largest salt flat is rougher than expected...although the salar appears to be perfectly flat to the eye, by applying an innovative method of error correction to their data, the team was able to identify broad features ranging in height from a few centimeters to half a meter and extending over distances of tens of kilometers or more."
http://www.gpsdaily.com...

The title of the article is "The Hills And Valleys Of Earth's Largest Salt Flat."
So, this effectively negates this location from being "without hills."

3. Even if Pro *could* have shown these areas to be perfectly flat, it still wouldn't affirm that the surface of the earth is without hills; to reach the conclusion that the surface of the earth is without hills because some parts of the earth's surface is without hills is called a fallacy of composition.
http://www.nizkor.org...

By assuming that something true of the part is therefore true of the whole is fallacious, and should be dismissed when considering the resolution.


*Therefore, Creator*

Pro says:
"I'm sure my opponent may be wondering at this time about how this may prove a Creator."

My response:
Yeah, and after reading Pro's 2nd round, this is still the case.


Pro inquires:
"How is it, when the earth is (supposedly) spinning at 1,000 mph, do such large expanses exist that are perfectly flat?"

My response:
Well, Pro, you haven't shown anything to be perfectly flat, so it may be the case that there are no large expanses that are truly flat.

Pro continues:
"Logic and common sense tell us that any object spinning at such speed will exhibit centrifugal force, especially at the equator of a planet, and could never be flat."

My response:
Right, hence why the surface of the earth isn't without hills.

Pro concludes:
"Our creator has countered this centrifugal force, and flattened out these many areas of earth."

My response:
The creator, who Pro fails to identify/mechanistically explain, has incompletely flattened out Pro's indicated locations on earth?
I'm baffled.
Pro wants us to believe that since the earth has quasi-flat areas, that some creator made it that way.
Well, the universe wasn't created, because creation is itself a temporal process, and time began at the beginning of the universe; time is expressed as space, which also began with the universe, so a creator *could not* have preceded its creation without spacetime, and this makes creation of the universe impossible, and, by proxy, god in this debate.

Pro's position has been negated on both fronts.
1. earth =/= flat
2. god =/= must be
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
PowerPikachu21
This is going to be weird debate. I get what MagicAintReal was doing with those definitions, and did Pro see this, and accept? I really wonder how this is going to go.
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Edlvsjd
no dinosaurs, no satellites (as we know them), NASA is full of crap.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
Eh.
Are there any scientific concepts, besides a spherical earth, that you reject?
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Edlvsjd
rematch after?
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Edlvsjd
there is no proof of a spherical Earth
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
That would have been nice to see first round.
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
which one?
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Edlvsjd
You know full well what the flat earth theory is
Posted by MagicAintReal 7 months ago
MagicAintReal
I wouldn't know what the flat earth theory is, because you didn't provide any definitions.
Why should you expect me to know something like that?
Saying that "earth is flat" opens up a library of interpretations, and you sent me the debate without any of them.
If you don't like my interpretations, then forfeit, but I always thought *you* were better than that; I assumed you could argue that the surface of the earth is hill-less...guess not.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.