The implication of the earth being flat is, essentially, God is real.

But oddly enough, that's an argument I don't see flat earthers trying to make. Like they haven't bothered thinking out the implications of their conspiracy.

IMO at least, flat earthers tend to avoid making biblical arguments because the people looking to scientific arguments lean towards atheistic and so a biblical argument would be refuted as "unscientific."

I'm something in that middle range, the ideal would be something consistent with biblical views but consistent with scientific principles.

Or that, if you could prove God is real by proving the earth is flat, that faith wouldn't be necessary and thus the entire point of all current Christian doctrine would be moot.

In a sense at least.

I'm no scientist. But then again, neither are flat earthers. Einstein says gravity is space and time warped around mass, and that mass is simply following a straight line in the path of least resistance. If that's the case, then containment of atmosphere is not necessary. It's held in place by gravity, which is the space time warp around the planet mass. That's the problem with flat earther gobbledygook pseudo science. The mere idea that atmosphere needs to be "contained" is inconsistent with known science. If they're asking how it's contained, they don't understand. They're reducing the problem to what they know and understand, like how a jar might contain high pressure air and how that air escapes when the lid is taken off, without any thought given to how gravity isn't a significant part of that example.

Don't worry, I'm just an engineer... BUT, as far as astrophysics goes, Special relativity only works as Einstein described for 5% of the observable universe, so, the scientists, in order to maintain Relativity, had to create the concepts of dark matter and dark energy (dark matter adds mass without any EM signature and dark energy to add extra repulsion without EM signature) in order to maintain Einstein's theories to the observation.

What relativity states is that the mass of an object bends the "space-time" around that object, but that concept is at odds with quantum theories where electrostatics (from electrons that is 10^48 times more powerful than gravity claims to be). So, the "flat earther gobbledygook" is actually a more elegant solution where the electrostatic effect, density and buoyancy generates a far more elegant solution, except that it requires that the atmosphere is contained. That all doesn't mean that there aren't other planets or that travelling between planets is impossible, just that it's not something that can be done through chemical propulsion (consider, in a vacuum, chemical propulsion doesn't work because there's nothing to push against, ).

Gravity is described as a weak force that doesn't exist at the quantum level, except for the Higgs boson that is what provides a mass to the particles and even then is a reification of special relativity and not a proven concept that applies at any macro scale. The problem with the globe earth model as that is concerned is that heat and high pressures will move into lower pressure and temperature systems when they interact and the force of that goes beyond the force of gravity (I've been standing at the air intake of an HVAC system where I felt both the heat of the furnace AND the suction of the air flow which was counter-intuitive because the heater was about 10ft away)

Or better yet, they can come to the realization that some things are unknowable, and picking a side and arguing it to death to the point of obnoxiousness on internet forums is a hill not worth dying on (unless that's their job because they're paid).

This part I can agree with because I understand that as a system increases in scale it also increases in complexity and usually to a greater extent than the increase in scale).