The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 95571
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




Flat Earth:
Going West past America there's is China

Dimensional space is a point of view

Really it's linked dimensions where America is a dimension linked to each time you go West and reach it again

The fixed shape of the locality between lands is a nexus of linked dimensions that manifest the eastern land when going further west

The nexus is not actually dimensional space it's an idealistic comprehension of a nexus of linked dimensions


Is this really a subject that is up for a debate in 2016? I realise that this argument doesn't have any substance and I only reply out of fascination to what a possible counter argument could be.

Your explanation of how traveling East and arriving back where you left off is a manifestation of two linked dimensions may have been a theory worth considering in 600 BC when the supporters of a flat Earth where running out of ideas on how to support their claims in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'm afraid it has no place here today though.

If I ignore the fact that you can now simply watch a live stream of the Earth from space and see its magnificent roundness in all of it's glory and just continue with common sense arguments, that will still be sufficient.

Have you ever been sat on a beach or near the sea at any time and watched a very large ship traveling from the horizon? If you haven't then I suggest you find time to do so as you may find it enlightening. You will notice that when the ship comes over the horizon it appears to rise up, first you will see the top of the ship and gradually the rest will be revealed. Exactly what you would expect in the case of a spherical body.

There is a fun experiment you can try with a friend on the other side of the world also! Phone him up when the sun is setting and ask him if he sees the same thing. If the Earth is indeed flat then you will both see the same thing at the same time. I hope you are right!

Another fun experiment if you are looking for something to do and have some spare cash: Take a ride in an airplane on a long haul flight and you can actually see the curvature of the Earth! Incredible....

Why not grab a telescope or go to an observatory and check out our neighbourly planets? You may find that they are part of the round club too!

Finally, if you find all this unconvincing, then strap yourself to a Saturn 5 rocket, blast yourself into the abyss of space and witness the curvature of the Earth for yourself!
Debate Round No. 1


Well no because dimensional space is an illusion of the idealistic comprehension so your sensory capabilities filter the nexus of linked dimensions through seeing the ship on the horizon smaller. You do not see the top of the ship first. The horizon itself is your comprehension filtering the far view and limiting it to a horizon. It's not dimensional space anyway it's a different dimensional place that doesn't include space, where idealism is a part of the reasoning and rationalising of the place.

Idealism is the argument to seeing the round earth when going into space. Why do you think you need a space suit. The brain does not work in the Earthly situation any longer, the idealistic mind takes over and sets up an illusional example of the nexus as a round earth. You would argue the space suit provides an Earthly way of functioning but why do you think you float. Without gravity? Really? It's because it's always an idealistic illusion that's processes within the illusional space around you and performs from there into your mind.


I can assure you that the ship observation that I pointed out is indeed correct and the same applies when it is travelling away from you, it starts to sink below the horizon as if sinking into the water.

I believe your argument in summary is basically that the round Earth is a result of sensory deception, a kind of trick of the mind so to speak. I think that you are confused when you talk about dimensional space being an illusion. Perhaps you saw the theory of a holographic universe and misunderstood what it was conveying?

Your argument against gravity and spacesuits seems too absurd to even respond but I will oblige for your own education. The reason you "float" in space is because you are outside the gravitational attraction of other bodies, such as the Earth and therefore are not drawn towards them so to speak. As for the spacesuit, in case it escaped your attention, space is a vacuum and can be a very inhospitable place. First of all, humans need oxygen to survive which I'm sure you are aware of. Secondly, particles of dust and debris travel through space at great velocity, the many layers a spacesuit is comprised of protect from that. Thirdly, it provides protection from harmful radiation which our atmosphere usually protects against. Fourthly, temperatures near the Earth can range from +200 to - 200, a space suit provides protection from these extremes.

If the Earth was flat then how would satellites work? How could re have satellites with circular orbits around a flat Earth?

You seem to reject empirical evidence, common sense and sensory perception. This is replaced with conjecture, guess work and false science. May I ask what your level of qualification in physics or any other science is? I believe you are just misguided and misinformed with desperate need for education in this subject.
Debate Round No. 2


What's wrong with dimensional space being an illusion. Maybe it doesn't work like nerves sense exactly what's there. What about idealism. No I did not get the idea from somewhere else it's my idea. I know about the holographic universe idea that it's a 1d plane projected as 3d across strings of the quantum form.

When we're on the surface of Earth we can only sense what's around us anyway. That's more evidence for idealism. Now that's clear what's hard about illusions. Illusions are a well studied concept within mainstream science such as in Solipsism.

You really think I'd conform to studying the academia of mainstream science? Just following a collection of information instead of creating new ideas myself? Go have your PhD your just working within others far-fetched concepts that look inward and overly scrutinised compared to the obvious truth of Idealism. Imperial evidence! (scoffs)

I can dream up a working satellite with my "eyes closed". Literally! How's that for idealism?


I"m confused about your first point but I"ll try to address it as best I can. Please correct me if I"m wrong when I translate your question to a more answerable one: There is a lot which is not understood about the Universe as it cannot be perceived by our sensory organs and is not intuitive to us as a species? This is of course true; quantum mechanics is a wonderful example of this and the scales which are discussed are so inconceivably small (e.g. a quark is about a billion times smaller than an atom) that they are impossible to imagine. Of course these are things which are not naturally intuitive to us, but we have the advantage of understanding these problems via the wonderful tool of mathematics. Physicists don"t just depend on sensory perception to form theories. They have ideas, they make observations, they make predictions, they create models, they use mathematics to make further predictions and if all these things are in coherence the results are peer reviewed and if there is a consensus, it becomes an accepted theory.

You seem to be disgruntled by "main stream science", and I would like to hear your reasons why when you reply to this. It may help to remember that main stream science is the reason you can sit at your computer and have this debate at all, or indeed do most of the things in your daily life. The clothes you wear are a result of discoveries in science such as the creation of polymers and synthetic materials. Any kind of transportation is the result of a multitude of mainstream sciences including aerodynamics, chemistry and physics. Any health care you have ever received is the result of advancements in mainstream medical science, chemistry or biology, even physics when it comes to x-rays and other scanning devices. I feel as though I could write for hours about the importance of "mainstream science" but I"m sure it will make no difference here.

It's interesting when you say you can dream of working satellites around a flat Earth. I find that to be an incredible statement and you must truly have a wonderful mind, to be able to see the required physics and mathematics to make that possible. It"s certainly not something I can imagine in my inferior mind and I take my hat off to you.

I have a question which I would also like answered. Your original statement was this "Justifying a Flat Earth scientifically as proposed in Islamic cosmology". I wonder why you find the concept of Islamic cosmology more compelling than cosmological techniques installed today? Remember that the ideas of Islamic cosmology were introduced in the Quran which was said to be written around 1400 years ago. A time when planets weren't even thought of as physical bodies.

I would finally like to point out that everybody is free to create wonderful assumptions about the universe in their mind based on simple observations, in fact, I do it all the time! What I don"t do is take these dreamed up ideas and present them as fact.
Debate Round No. 3


I'll show you where I can also use calculations and methods along with the bluntness of Idealism.

What are the things which are possible to exist. Surely not contradictory things, including shapes. I square with the same area at its base cannot fit within a square pyramid. Whatever was possible to be did become to be.

Now whatever is more simple to get conjured is going to be over what's more complicated, leaving impossible contradictory things aside. This is because it can either be simple or complicated but it's more natural that the simpler requires less of a span of time to manifest it's properties.

This is how there can be an idealistic "dream" that is the entirety of cosmology. The logical shapes are still apparent within the dream (idealism, solipsism).

Now that there is one sensory being is there any "room" for any other being or even any object or physical form away from the idealistic. No.

Another thing would need a space and space ends up to where the idealist can sense.

The flat earth has dimensions beyond physical space while the humans have an illusional simplified space filtered into their senses.


I"m afraid I must be missing what you are getting at and I don"t quite grasp what points you are trying to put forward here. I suggest that we move onto the final round where you put forward one piece of factual evidence (No guess work, false science or conjecture) for there being a flat Earth. I will address this and disprove it.
Debate Round No. 4


I have settled with idealism as a support to my theory. Any emperical evidence works within the idealists senses and can sometimes be contrary to it just being the idealists senses such as photos of other places.

By proposing idealism I'm countering the spherical earth view of mainstream science. When that's disproved one would be more open to further ideas on top of Idealism.


What you have done is put forward an incredibly incoherent proposal. You have not provided any justifiable facts or empirical proof to support your proposal as I have done with mine. I asked you in the final round to provide such evidence and you seemed to have ducked out of that by repeating the same nonsense which has been the context of this entire debate. As someone in the comments rightly pointed out, I cannot disprove the idea of a flat Earth that we cannot recognise because of an illusion that has gripped us in the same way that no one can disprove anything of the sort with 100% confidence. The aim for this debate I thought was to provide evidence for both proposals and determine which one was more likely representative of reality. I"m afraid to say that basing your "scientific" ideas on a book written 1400 years ago, by people who had an excuse not to know any better, will not get you far in your pursuit of a true explanation of real world physics. I feel you have highlighted common problem, which is the use of technical and scientific wording in places that do not suit it in the hope that it makes your argument appear more informed. You have thrown around the word idealism like that is some kind of argument. You have shown disrespect to great minds dedicated to their fields by saying they are following some kind of conspiratorial works which aren"t representative of the truth.

My advice to you, and I hope you take this seriously; Educate yourself about the universe we live in, don"t so readily buy into cheap and flimsy theories driven only by imagination. Don"t reject logic for illogic. Don"t use a religious text as a source of knowledge in science. Don"t represent fiction as fact. Don"t attempt to cast a shadow on the brilliant and dedicated minds on this planet who work tirelessly to gain an understanding of this world. Don"t preach ignorance.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BackCommander 4 months ago
@dsjpk5 Thanks! I'll be honest, this is the first time someone on this site has directly engaged me without being very negative.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
>Reported vote: tonyrobinson// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro used no sources of information. Pro used the term idealism a lot but never defined it or how it was relevant to the topic. Pro was incoherent with everything he said.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Regardless of the voter's general views of Pro's arguments, they are nonetheless required to examine specific points made by both sides. The voter fails to do so for Pro, and never even mentions Con in this RFD. Lacking that, the vote is insufficient.
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
Excellent rfd commander!
Posted by solar145254 4 months ago
It's about it not being physical but a dream spawned. It's what was easier to spawn
Posted by Zaephou 4 months ago
Pro is trying to present a red herring
Posted by CallumFerguson 4 months ago
I saw you mention this solar and it has little bearing on the debate. I think what you are trying to say is that if you have a cube, and you take one side of that cube to form the base of a square pyramid, the cube you originally had will not fit inside the pyramid. Again, using unrelated examples of physical impossibilities, you try to justify your view that a round Earth is a physical impossibility?
Posted by solar145254 4 months ago
A cube with the same area at its base can NOT fit within a square pyramid
Posted by BackCommander 4 months ago
Posting my RFD here.

"Well no because dimensional space is an illusion of the idealistic comprehension so your sensory capabilities filter the nexus of linked dimensions through seeing the ship on the horizon smaller." This is one example of the horrific sentence structure that Pro used throughout this entire debate. Con's arguments where well worded and didn't have to be reread multiple times to get the message. Con gets the S&G vote. Pro's entire argument hinges on a premise that they never provides any evidence for, instead simply repeating that their opponent has succumbed to idealism without explaining how, or even defining the term.
"What are the things which are possible to exist. Surely not contradictory things, including shapes. I square with the same area at its base cannot fit within a square pyramid." Yet another quote from Pro, whose posts are consistently incoherent and without evidence to back their claims. Pro spends this entire debate using only their personal philosophy and beliefs to back up what is a scientific argument. As Con explains in their final round, Pro only put forward an incredibly incoherent proposal, without any evidence to back it up. Pro went so far as to claim that all mainstream science couldn't be trusted, and therefore had none to back up their own claims. Con used the classic "boat over the horizon" argument, and realistically that's all it tends to take for a "round-earther" to win these debates. Pro's only argument for this was stating that it was simply an illusion that the human mind creates, a terribly weak rebuttal. Perhaps if they had also included some evidence of such a widespread illusion that all humans succumb to perhaps it could be taken seriously. Pro's inability to provide evidence, along with Con's arguments being insufficiently rebutted throughout the entire debate, resulted in my vote for convincing argument being given to Con.
Posted by CallumFerguson 4 months ago
Thank you Zaephou, what you say about the flying spaghetti monster is one of my favourite Richard Dawkins comments and it is entirely true. I hope voters see for themselves the lack of evidence and illogic in his argument without even taking my side into account. I have tried to close the argument in a way that addresses all his inadequacies but this is my first time debating so I have likely missed some key parts that I will think more carefully about in my next debate.
Posted by Zaephou 4 months ago
Pro must provide proof for his claims, he can't just say we have dimensional portals without any justifications and let him get away with that.

I request Con to state these logical incoherencies in his final argument, to let readers and voters know of how flawed his arguments are.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BackCommander 4 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments