The Earth is Overall, Flat

1 Pro: "this surface will be definitely considered "flat": http://www.labconco.com... Assuming that this picture is a representation of a three dimensional object and assuming that pro is claiming that the individual surface areas of the represented 3D object will be considered flat, then I concede. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Pro: "logically this could also be considered "flat" overall: http://www.iidudu.com... Assuming that pro is claiming that the top surface of this three dimensional object could logically be considered to be flat overall then I disagree and refute the claim. The top surface of this 3D object (the chair above) is NOT flat overall. For a surface to be overall flat it would be required that most of the surface was level and even. The top surface of this chair does not meet this requirement as its entire surface is curved continuously and is thus not consistently flat overall according to the definitions we agreed upon. I suspect that the reason my opponent wants to argue that this surface can be logically considered to be flat overall (which it cannot be on account of the fact that it is curved overall) is because the gradient of the surface is small enough to be considered to be "close" to flat. Well, I'm afraid, a gradient that is "close" to being flat still is not flat. As long as a gradient results in a curvature it is curved, no matter how small the gradient. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Pro's next claim is absolutely absurd. Pro argues that if a person has only one acne on their face then their face is still mostly flat. I see absolutely no merit for this claim. A person's face IS NOT flat in the first place! The surface of a person's face is absolutely full of various curved gradients. Seriously, I have never met or seen a person with a flat face according to the agreed definition of flat. If you go to any reasonable person and ask them if they have a flat face, I can guarantee they will say no. I suspect that here, pro is equating the term "flat" with the term "smooth". But if a surface is smooth it does not follow that the surface is therefore flat. A surface can be curved and still be smooth but that does not make it flat. To say something is smooth is not to say that the surface is overall flat, it is simply to say that the surface can be FOLLOWED smoothly. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 My opponent starts arguing from really shaky ground now in which pro relies on sneaky word usage in hopes that I won't notice. Pro says and I quote, "there has been proven by many scientists the possibility of us being in a four-dimensional universe surrounded by a black hole." Notice, pro does not say that the theory has evidence proving an actual feature of reality, he simply says that it is a proven POSSIBILITY. So that it is POSSIBLE the universe COULD be within a four dimensional universe. But is there evidence that indicates that this IS PROBABLE? Well, no. Pro doesn't claim the universe IS four dimensional and the article he linked cites no evidence for such a claim either. It is all a conjectural possibility. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 Next, pro makes an unwarranted claim. Pro claims and I quote, "All I have to do is to prove in some kind of perspective the Earth is overall "flat"." I completely disagree. It is not the interest of this debate whether or not the earth "appears" to be flat in a perspective other than our own. Neither is it the interest of this debate for pro to prove that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of a dimension that has not been evidently proven to probably be an objective feature of reality. The interest of this debate is for pro to PROVE that the earth IS flat and he has relied on the ambiguity of the wording of this responsibility to dodge having to prove that the earth is flat from an objective perspective. This is why pro tried to sneakily suggest that reality is four dimensional but as I have pointed out, it has not been proven that reality PROBABLY IS four dimensional, it has only been shown that it COULD be POSSIBLE. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 For the purposes of keeping this round from becoming more filled with text I have not fully included my refutations to pro's material on two and one dimensional entities. So, in short, those refutations are based on the notion that entities that can exist in dimensions other than 3D do not have a three dimensional surface and so thus cannot be considered "flat" in the three dimensional sense. And as it has not been proven that reality is anything other than three dimensional, the perspectives from other dimensions do nothing to prove that the earth is actually flat from an objective perspective. So, my opponent's arguments do not strongly hinge on a single philosophical argument (not to mention that none of his arguments were philosophical), pro's argument strongly hinges upon evidence that the three dimensional universe exists within a four dimensional universe and as there is neither no claim by pro that we have such evidence (as he only claimed that it is a possibility) and as there was no such evidence cited in the linked article (it too only showed that it is possible), my opponents argument fails. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Finally: I hold that from an objective, three dimensional perspective, the earth is not overall flat. The earth is mostly curved or jagged and it is extremely difficult to find a naturally flat surface on the face of the earth. Therefore, the earth is not overall flat. I also hold that it has not been proven that our three dimensional universe is within a four dimensional universe, it has only been shown to be a possibility and has not been shown to probably be an objective feature of reality. I hold that pro cannot prove that from an objective, three dimensional perspective that the earth is flat. The most pro has shown is that the earth can appear to be flat from the perspective of another dimension and that it is possible that such a dimension is an actual feature of reality. So, pro can show that it is a possibility but pro cannot prove that it is an objective feature of reality. - On to you pro.