Um No. It's just your spaceman bunkum.
So you keep trying to imply, but you know perfectly well that you have been given multiple examples and references and they all point to the same conclusion: absent a change in forces that can be registered by the vestibular system, we have no idea of whether or not we are moving in relation to X or if X is moving in relation to us. Absent visual references at all, we have no idea of whether we are moving or not.
If you want you can summarise all the points that tell us why we cant feel the motion of the eArth when we are standing on Earth. Here I'll even put the bullets for ya:
You have been given the explanation several times by several posters. If you refused to get it then, you're not going to agree to get it now.
_My imagination? No my friend. It's the evidence contained within the Gospels. The witness testimonies of Christ. If you have read the evidence and come to the conclusion that Christ is not the Son of God then I'm sorry but you are antichrist in our eyes defined by the following verse:
2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
And just for kicks that verse also describes you as a liar, which I hasten to add is not my personal accusation of you or that of antichrist but it is the scriptures talking. Seeing as scripture defines you as a liar then no-one on these forums would have any reason to believe anything you bring forward. Nothing personal. Thats just our beliefs. Anyone who deny's the Christ cannot be trusted. Simples.
This metaphysical sermonising would be more impressive if you didn't post quotemines and misrepresentations from various apologetics sites with every sign of approval.
You can POINT to strawman argumants but can you show WHY they are strawmen? Critical difference.
If you assert, for example, that evolutionary theory says X (when it says no such thing), simply so that you can attack and demolish X - thereby showing evolutionary theory is false - then you are engaging in a strawman argument. I think that shows why something is a strawman. A specific example is provided by your earlier quoted example of 'heliocentrists' proposing the 'fraudulent analogy' of someone walking inside a moving train to show why we do not experience a sense of movement from either Earth's rotational or orbital velocities. Your source neither cites its own source for this 'usually' proposed 'fraudulent analogy', nor names any of the many 'heliocentrists' who apparently espouse it; your source provides neither bibliography nor notes to reference this assertion. Absent any clear indication of the seemingly many 'heliocentrists' who 'usually' apply this 'fraudulent analogy', it very much seems that the supposed 'usually' quoted analogy is a post facto creation of the author, i.e. s/he has thought of some invalidating arguments against an example that s/he has thought up for her/his self.
I quoted the part that is relevant to the topic. Is that a crime?
Nope, but I doubt you agree with Nietzsche on the arguments he put forth that I quoted, so I wondered why you considered the quotation you gave as useful to your argument. And, indeed, given your comments above regarding the untrustworthiness of anyone who 'deny's (sic) the Christ', I am even more surprised that you would regard Nietzsche - who called himself 'the Anti-Christ', after all, and saw Christ as an enemy and rival - with any more confidence than the rest of us liars.
.
