So an argument that starts with a flawed assumption doesn't work.
Actually the assumption is if God is perfect can he build a rock so big he could not lift it. The context in which it was used was to refute Descartes attempt to prove that God is perfect. I assumed nothing but only ask the question. Emperical evidence has yet to be found for the existance of God but the most well known proof for the existance of God is simply that most people believe in God therefore he must exist. It was refuted by most most people believe in a flat earth therefore the earth must be flat. Most religions seek to prove that its God is the only true God. The logical refute is that out of billions of people that have existed and the millions of religions that have existed what are the odds that any one religion is of the true God. At best a million to one.
one minor side note: it does not appear to have been true that most people who considered the matter at all ever considered the earth to be flat.
that is an antireligious myth coined (independently?) by some frenchman and Nathaniel Hawthorne (iirc) as a prop to extol the virtues of the Enlightenment over the "dark and superstitious foolishness" of earlier church-dominated times.
Certainly from at least the time of the early Roman Empire (as evidenced by imperial statuary and regalia) the educated classes knew quite well that the Earth was a sphere (see the orbis terrarum in such statuary, and in imperial and later royal paraphernalia).
IIRC, there is no mention of belief in a flat earth in navigational treatises contemporary to Columbus, and no mention of any such generalized belief until the early 1800's and their anti-religious/anti-papacy broadsides and "histories".
let's not accuse religious folk of sins they didn't own, ok?
we must strive to be fair in our little wars, yes?
And what are the 'odds' of winning the PowerBall???
Yet, people do it quite regularly.