Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

AN‎ on Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism

Flat Earth Frenzy: Unscientific and Unbiblical
http://robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf

I

NTD

another nut job!

AN

If you haven't got anything to say about this article, you should probably move along. This is a troll-free group.

NTD

then u prob should of kept it enclosed to friends that are nutjobs like yourself unless ur playing a scam not sure how ud get $$$ out of this nonsence though

II

J. H.

The Bible says nothing about whether the earth is round or flat.

NTD

isaiah refers to a dome but its a prophetic book so yes ur closer to right jason

AN

Do you disagree with any of the points that Dr. Sungenis made in this article?

J. H.

To be honest, I only care about what the Bible says, and it says nothing about the earth being flat or round.

AN

The article I posted deals in part with what the Bible says- so you can ignore the science part if you want.

NTD

AN no i think after its been shown even out in space that the earth is round in our dementional space its nuts to even suggest the earth is flat or worry bout it- honestly people are either really gullible or stupid or crazy

honestly flat earthers in this day and age are ready for the psych ward in honest

J. H.

This is getting under your skin. If flat earth is nuts, then why keep going on about it?

Who cares if the earth is flat or round? Its stationary and in the center, and that's what matters.

NTD

not under my skin i just find you all nuts and at times not even amusing in ur insanity

AN

Well, if you'd read the article before jumping to conclusions, you'll notice that Dr. Sungenis is saying that science supports a spherical Earth, not a flat Earth. He also says that the Bible does not describe a flat Earth, which Jason seems to agree with.

J. H.

You are assuming I'm a flat earther.

I dont care either way.

NTD

ok then- i blame this my lack of sleep for not catching that i was assuming that of alex not u jason

AN

If someone is a flat-Earther, they cannot use the Bible to support their position. They must prove it scientifically against the scientific proofs for a spherical Earth.

NTD

^ in other words believe their own delusions

J. H.

Both sides have good arguments. Its our presuppositions that will determine what we want to believe.

NTD

yeah but its a weak arguement on there end despite theirs nothing backing em up at all

AN

J. H. Do you think the flat Earth theory has a good scientific argument?

J. H.

Yes.

NTD

they dont have enough since but they take their ideas going back to the greeks of a flat earth- they also thought atlas heald up the earth gravity was uknown to em

AN

J. H. what is it?

NTD

in that age

J. H.

So does the round earth.

NTD

only in one dimention of quantum physics but in the dimentions we are in its spherical thats obvious

J. H.

I'm not gonna get into it. You can research it if you really care.

AN

J. H. I have. Every single scientific "proof" of Flat Earth falls flat (excuse the pun), as Dr. Sungenis shows in this article. You might as well say you don't care if the Earth in donut-shaped, because there are good arguments for it.

J. H.

Any argument I give can just be countered with an ad hoc patch up.

AN

Okay

Hans-Georg Lundahl

NTD actually, flat earthers would consider you gullible for believing the pictures from space.

I don't, but I admit theoretically they could be a fraud.

As to Geostationary conclusions of seeing a "rotating earth" from space, that has nothing to do with fraud, it's just as if you were filming a tower from a chopper that was flying around it, proves nothing even if genuine.

NTD Gravity was NOT unknown to the Greeks. Unless you specify it's the Newtonian version you mean.

One version lets the universe have three dimensions, and up and down EQUALS one of these (hence Atlas keeping heaven above Earth in Homeric myth).

But one version, in Greek philosophy, makes centre of Earth the point to which all heavy substances tend - and away from which all light substances tend. That version of gravity was very much available to Greeks and they were generally Round Earth.

Actually, much of the Flat Earth thing is less of a psy-ops and more of a Puritanic aversion to Greek philosophy, among those sects which were against it (Judaism of the post-Temple Rabbinic Pharisaic type, Islam, Nestorianism - Cosmas Indicopleustes was either Nestorian or influenced by them - and of course Protestantism, especially the more non-Catholic types). (Oh, I forgot Islam). In these sects, the alternatives are mainly either modern cosmology or reviving a traditional but Flat Earth one.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AN, it seems Robert Sungenis is forgetting our own cosmology:

Youtube is filled with normal everyday people who have become amateur scientists and producers, all telling us that society as a whole has been deceived into thinking that the Earth is round, despite the fact that almost every other celestial body we see in the universe, from our sun, our moon, the planets or the stars, are round.

• 1) He is appealing to Copernican principle in saying Earth must be as every other spot in space (at least every spot which is a body);
  
  
• 2) He is also calling Earth a "celestial" body, which according to Geocentrism it clearly is not.

We must agree that, if the sun were only 3000 miles high and was only 27 miles in diameter, it would produce the sun rays we see in the two above pictures. But this doesn’t prove anything for the flat‐earthers since it can easily be shown that a sun with is .864 million miles in diameter that is 93 million miles away will also produce the same slanted rays. So will a sun that is 47 million miles away and is .432 million miles in diameter; and so will a sun that is 3 million miles away and 27,000 miles in diameter. All of these suns will look the same and produce the same effects on the Earth.

Here one would like some detail.

To the first glance, it looks as if Sungenis was denying that a triangle with base to us and known width gives a known height of triangle, hence a known distance.

The argument Heliocentrics use about parallax, you know.

For example, a small sun that is only 3000 miles high might be able to produce the slanted rays we see in the above picture, but it is not going to be able to produce enough gravity to hold in the planets; and it is not going to be able to produce enough light to reflect off the moon and the planets for us to be able to see them from Earth. Flat‐earthers try to solve these problems by claiming that gravity is a fiction and that the planets are mere mock‐ups from NASA. In effect, they have solved one problem only to create two bigger problems.

Would like some detail about light on Moon problem for them.

Sun's gravity holding in planets in their orbits is anyway not a very good explanation, so here Flat Earthers are not even getting a problem.

Angelic movers keeping planets where they are will do.

Also, when he says small sun would not have enough gravity, at some point he presumes we know the "gravity exerted by Sun" is proportional to its "known" mass and that poses the question how you know the solar mass independently of the view that gravity is what keeps planets in orbit around Sun.

First, it the earth were a flat disc, the North Star, Polaris, would be at the top dead center and we would be able to see it from anywhere on the disc, even from the perimeter of the disc. (See FIG. 1). But the fact is, a little less than half the humans on earth, that is, those who live in what is normally understood as the southern hemisphere, don’t see Polaris at all. Instead, those in the southern hemisphere see the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis (with a telescope because it is dim). Likewise, those in the northern hemisphere cannot see Sigma Octantis.

Now we are talking.

But next argument adresses the "totally flat earth" view, not the modern flat earth torus view, where equator is on top of a torus and this hides parts of earth from each other.

Obviously, there is a problem with the torus view as well.

Two points of equator should be able to see each other across the dimple for the North Pole, if torus view was true.

Religious beliefs, even agnostic and atheistic ones, go very deep into the human psyche and they are often used as the ultimate criteria for how one judges reality. If something goes against one’s religious beliefs, no matter how true or right it may be, the religious beliefs have a tendency to win the battle.

People who believe in a flat earth are not immune from this psychological malady. Almost to a man, they believe the Earth is flat because they believe the Bible says so.

Malady?

Sounds like advocation of modern psychiatric criteria of mental health!

Obviously, a man who believes sth uncorrect due to an uncorrect religion (and yes, their religions are usually so) is not comparable to a man who is mad or in a frenzy.

Here we come to a very uncharitable and perhaps even unjust view of Robert Sungenis' on his opponents.

If the Earth were flat and had gravity, the tendency would be for the Earth to roll itself into a ball, since that is the most economical shape to accommodate the force of gravity. That is why all the celestial objects we see are round or near round. This is especially true of an object that is 75% water, as the Earth is. Since water is very flexible, it would form into a sphere in the same way that water dripping from a faucet forms spherical drops. The surface tension and gravity will make it form into a sphere, which is the shape that requires the least energy to hold the object together.

Two problem's with the argument:

• 1) presumes correctness of modern understanding of gravity;
  
  
• 2) a lesser detail, also thinks Earth as volume is 75% water, I think that refers rather to the surface. As volume, magma would be more present than water.

that there is no gravity. It is just a figment of Newton’s wild imagination. This, they believe, will allow them to keep the Earth flat. So how do flat‐earthers propose that people and object can remain on Earth without floating away into outer space? ... Other flat‐earthers claim that what hold us humans to the ground is the fact that our density is greater than air. If we were filled with helium, it would make our density less than air and we would rise above the ground. Although this solution answers the issue of how density affects buoyancy, it does not answer the issue of gravity, since it gives no answer as to how the Earth’s air is held close to the Earth and is not sucked into the vacuum of space.

Here this solution is perfectly concordant with the Aristotelic view of gravity, except that they have gravity pointing into one direction of one dimension of space, rather than inward, as Aristotle and St Thomas. And as Epicure, for that matter.

Also, a Hebrew might not agree nature abhors vacuum and Aristotle who said it might not agree there is one, properly speaking, outside what we call our atmosphere.

Revelation 1:7 : Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, everyone who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (RSV)

The flat‐earthers claim that if the Earth were round, it would be impossible for everyone on Earth to see Christ coming back on the clouds. Even if Christ were as big as conventional theory says the Sun is, half of the world would not see him. The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that when Christ comes back, the people will still be on the surface of the Earth. But this is not the picture suggested in Scripture. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:16‐7 says that the people on Earth will be raised into the sky when Christ returns:

16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together wthem in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (RSV)

Your solution misses that Revelation 1:7 speaks of everyone on Earth, while 1 Thessalonians only speaks of the rapture of certain Christians (a rapture which is post-tribulation and on which St Thomas expounds that it is not a real exception from the rule of dying, since the raptured acc. to this passage will die and resurrect in mid air).

IV

Good point not developed on FB:

.... As Big Bang evolutionist Richard Lewontin has honestly put it:

.... Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Reference: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31.

V

A. N.

[to the point about angle of sunshine on edges of clouds]

Crepuscular waves. It looks like the sun is about 20ft above the water.

From:

image provideded by A. N.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156695848845637&set=p.10156695848845637&type=3

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you!

That is the kind of detail I would have liked from Sungenis' answer!

Robert Sungenis

Mr. Lundahl, this is when your nit-picking gets you in trouble. I'm only saying the Earth is round. Period. And the reference to "celestial body" is merely a general reference for comparison.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, not "period". You are trying to ARGUE it, and of course I nitpick about arguing. If you bother to do that, why not argue well - or leave it to someone who argues better?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (adding later)

However, your exposé of what Wellhausen did is really a gold nugget!

VI & VII = HGL

VI

Back to quibbles:

The Bible speaks about the “corners of the Earth,” [Jb 37:3; Is 11:12; 41:9; Ez 7:2; Ap 7:1; 20:8.] or “ends of the Earth.” [Dt 28:64; 33:17; 1Sm 2:10; Jb 28:24; 38:13; Ps 19:4-6; 22:27; 46:9; 48:10; 59:13; 61:2; 65:5; 41:9; Jr 51:16; Dn 4:10-11; Mk 13:27.] The latter two terms do not, of course, mean that the Earth has literal corners or ends. Rather, “corners” refers to the four compass points (north, east, south and west), while “ends” refers to the respective east and west horizons. Hence, Scripture is not implying that the Earth is flat. Not only does Scripture imply that the Earth is a sphere, [Jb 26:10; Pr 8:27-29; Is 40:22.] it never refers to the Earth as being flat.

Actually, take "circle" and "corners" together, the more literal you make both, the more impossible a Flat Earth geography becomes. Both of them cannot be the contour of same flat surface.

So, four corners in Apocalypse 7:1 would seem to refer to actual places, since angels are standing there (sth to consider if anyone thinks "angels are too small to carry planets or even sun").

But on a flat earth map, there are only three South corners, unless you make Australian S coast count as having two (and one of them becomes a very obtuse angle).

To get four, you need a round earth.

Corners being of course those of continent(s), counting as "continent" or "land". Earth as opposed, not to Heaven, but to Sea.

VII

And a minor one, you seem to be attributing The Orthodox Faith to St Basil.

The best known work of that title belongs to St John of Damascus, and I double checked St Basil on Catholic Encyclopedia, where I did not find that title.

St Cyril of Jerusalem has been counted as a Flat Earther, your quote does not quite counter this (unless it was St Cyprian of Carthage?)

And your quote from Lactantius does not take into account that he is referring to a philosopheme he is disbelieving in.