The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[freelight]

life vehicles........

life vehicles........

The Resurrection​

For more insights on the resurrection-body of Jesus, and also some points from a UB perspective....see this thread - Jesus' resurrection and ascension body


pj

 

[Stuu]

Caino I note your complete lack of answers to the points I raised. You just ignored what I wrote pretty much entirely. Why would anyone engage with you if you are just going to mindlessly move on without reference to the good points raised against your criminal book?

I stand by the claim that 57:1.1 and 57:1.3 are factually incorrect. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the UB has some kind of prophetic quality, then it would all have to be right. But most of it is demonstrably wrong.

Anyway, address what I wrote first, then we might be able to move on and look at your other fatuous claims like this fantasy concept of the universe expanding and contracting.

You've got no idea how to know whether it is right or wrong, I suspect.

By the way, regarding your pathological need to discourteously post vast tracts, how about you take up a couple of pages here to post the whole sorry thing, and get that out of your system?

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Caino I note your complete lack of answers to the points I raised. You just ignored what I wrote pretty much entirely. Why would anyone engage with you if you are just going to mindlessly move on without reference to the good points raised against your criminal book?

I stand by the claim that 57:1.1 and 57:1.3 are factually incorrect. If, as you seem to be suggesting, the UB has some kind of prophetic quality, then it would all have to be right. But most of it is demonstrably wrong.

Anyway, address what I wrote first, then we might be able to move on and look at your other fatuous claims like this fantasy concept of the universe expanding and contracting.

You've got no idea how to know whether it is right or wrong, I suspect.

By the way, regarding your pathological need to discourteously post vast tracts, how about you take up a couple of pages here to post the whole sorry thing, and get that out of your system?

Stuart

* Stuu, you aren't an honest broker, your mind was made up about religion in general a long time ago, so you come to multiple religious net forums and argue just for the sake of it.

* The book claims to be revelation, there are some glaring disagreements with current scientific understanding. Other areas are being substantiated. Time will tell.

* I've engaged you many times before and answered the same claims only to have more childish insults returned. You waste my time.

* You lack spiritual insight, so understandably the spiritual content is all Chinese to you, consequently you become more angry and indignant in general discussions.

* A (1) page post shouldn't overwhelm a person who is sincere and would like to discuss the ideas presented in this dedicated thread. Often clips here are related to discussions on other threads where to bother them with large post would be inappropriate. This is a UB forum, if you hate the book so much then don't come to this thread.



Caino

 

[Stuu]

* Stuu, you aren't an honest broker, your mind was made up about religion in general a long time ago, so you come to multiple religious net forums and argue just for the sake of it.

I guess if you are short on valid answers then this ad hominem argument must seem quite appealing.

* The book claims to be revelation, there are some glaring disagreements with current scientific understanding. Other areas are being substantiated. Time will tell.

Time has told. Revelation is demonstrably no better than ignorant humans guessing. Pretty much ALL the parts of the UB that can be shown to be correct were discovered by real humans, from whom the intellectual property was stolen. The numbers of "revealed" guesses that turned out to be right is about consistent with guessing in general.

* I've engaged you many times before and answered the same claims only to have more childish insults returned. You waste my time.

You reply, but you don't address the points. See our last exchange for a classic example.

* You lack spiritual insight, so understandably the spiritual content is all Chinese to you, consequently you become more angry and indignant in general discussions.

On what basis do you accuse me of lacking spiritual insight? Do tell!

* A (1) page post shouldn't overwhelm a person who is sincere and would like to discuss the ideas presented in this dedicated thread.

I promise you I am very sincere in what I write about this book of theft. The computer on which you are reading this now was developed through a long process of scientific endeavour that amounts to many brilliant people working together across countries and across different eras of history. No one referred to the UB when developing a computer. All the UB has done is taken without asking or acknowledging. It has contributed nothing, apart from some marginal science fiction in the minds of a select few.

Often clips here are related to discussions on other threads where to bother them with large post would be inappropriate. This is a UB forum, if you hate the book so much then don't come to this thread.

OK, that I can applaud, that you would not jam up other discussions with this, although you might be careful with the expression "This is a UB forum" - it's a UB thread within another forum.

To what extent do those other TOLers follow you and respond here?

But all the same, don't expect to get away with ignoring what is posted here. If you are going to dish it out, do you have the integrity to follow up?

Stuart

 

[freelight]

reality check

reality check

Time has told. Revelation is demonstrably no better than ignorant humans guessing. Pretty much ALL the parts of the UB that can be shown to be correct were discovered by real humans, from whom the intellectual property was stolen. The numbers of "revealed" guesses that turned out to be right is about consistent with guessing in general.

Hi Stuu,

I've already addressed the issue of 'plagarism' with you, and that there are many enhancements and expansions of insight/revelation given philosophically, concerning the spiritual progress and nature of man, the principles of religious values and meanings, and a very rich, ordered cosmology and heirarchy of the Godhead, from the Trinity on down thru many orders of celestial sons, cosmic beings and angels, etc.

New concepts and terms such as 'morontia' (that realm or substance inbetween matter and spirit) and 'thought-adjuster' (a pre-personal fragment of 'God' indwelling the mind of man) and other points have been shared by this group of beings, granted in this particular dispensation known as the Urantia Papers.
They stand by their own philosophical, religious and spiritual values, assocation and application concerning man's estate and progress in the world, and in the life beyond. - this is what is important for the religionist, one truly interested in spiritual values, eternal survival, etc.

As far as objective science and astronomy goes....the collective knowledge of that time period was used as a base, and whatever additions or corrections the revelators made...will be proved or disproven in time, a simple logical observation. All the rest stands, particularly in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy, which is quite consistent regarding man's place in the universe and his divine potential and destiny.

Your pet peeves and complaints may positively keep the thread running for others to read the papers for themselves, while your asseessment of the material remains your own. Thanks for being such a jolly good sport

Investigate for yourself


pj

 

[freelight]

back to values......

back to values......

Here is my own quote from the Urantia Book, Ch57 (note the acknowledgement of the source there Caino, it is something you also do that your book of theft fails to do):

57:1.3 987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.

Now, if you didn't laugh at this extract as poorly-constructed science fiction then you are as gullible as the most ignorant Young Earth Creationist. The YEC believes the earth is less than 10,000 years, and the UB follower believes the universe is at least 987 billion years old. The YEC must believe the distance from New York to Los Angeles is a matter of a few miles, and the UB promoter must think it is more than 207,000 miles, actually the distance traveled in circumnavigating the earth nearly 33 times. Moronic.

This appears a little earlier:

57:1.1 Urantia is of origin in your sun

No it's not. Planets that can support our kind of life have elements that arose in a supernova. Our sun (presumably the one to which it refers, since we do call our star the sun) has never been a supernova and will never be one. Also moronic.

Of course I'd be interested to see what some UB readers/researchers say about these points. In any case, however thats evaluated,...the religious, spiritual and philosophical discourse and explanations of man's enterprise in the cosmos still holds consistent regarding his pursuit of real values and meanings. - that is what is essential. (this is important to note).

Some resource sites covering issues of science are below -

UBtheNews

Science-topics in the UB

Science is the source of facts, and mind cannot operate without facts. They are the building blocks in the construction of wisdom which are cemented together by life experience. Man can find the love of God without facts, and man can discover the laws of God without love, but man can never begin to appreciate the infinite symmetry, the supernal harmony, the exquisite repleteness of the all-inclusive nature of the First Source and Center until he has found divine law and divine love and has experientially unified these in his own evolving cosmic philosophy. ~ UB 111:6.6

What has value and meaning is what is essential....what actual potentials exist for us NOW and what can be unfolded in the ongoing progress and evolution of life. - this is key.


pj

 

[Stuu]

I've already addressed the issue of 'plagarism' with you

I don't remember you apologising on behalf of the crackpot authors for their theft of the work of real humans in the name of beings that you would have had to show actually exist.

You must have a different definition of "addressed" in mind, one that means something like "waved away".

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Stuu,

Beginning to address assertions I've made recreantly, I recalled you asked for more on the "expanding and contracting" theory. More to follow.



Science News - July 28, 2012

“Astrophysicists interrogate one of their most successful theories.”

“One such alternative, developed over the last decade, holds that the universe may not have begun with a single Big Bang, rather experiences cycle after cycle of contraction and expansion.”​

http://www.sciencenewsdigital.org/sciencenews/20120708?pg=23#pg23


(123.6) 11:6.4 The cycles of space respiration extend in each phase for a little more than one billion Urantia years. During one phase the universes expand; during the next they contract. Pervaded space is now approaching the mid-point of the expanding phase, while unpervaded space nears the mid-point of the contracting phase, and we are informed that the outermost limits of both space extensions are, theoretically, now approximately equidistant from Paradise. The unpervaded-space reservoirs now extend vertically above upper Paradise and below nether Paradise just as far as the pervaded space of the universe extends horizontally outward from peripheral Paradise to and even beyond the fourth outer space level.


I've never investigated it, was there a scientist in the 1930's that advanced this theory about a central eternal universe or ultraverse that is the pattern for the material universe that expands and contracts?


Caino

 

[freelight]

exhausted

exhausted

I don't remember you apologising on behalf of the crackpot authors for their theft of the work of real humans in the name of beings that you would have had to show actually exist.

You must have a different definition of "addressed" in mind, one that means something like "waved away".

Stuart

We've addressed with you many times about the plagarism issue and shared what the revelators themselves said about using human sources and expanding from that base of knowledge. So your claim of 'waved away' is FALSE.

See Here

Your usual rants are getting old and tired. You have your own personal hang ups,...but carry on if you wish. You just help to promote what might be a valuable source of inspiration for others. Of course you'll just slur and demean this in your typical manner. Nothing new.



pj

 

[Stuu]

We've addressed with you many times about the plagarism issue and shared what the revelators themselves said about using human sources and expanding from that base of knowledge. So your claim of 'waved away' is FALSE.

See Here

Your usual rants are getting old and tired. You have your own personal hang ups,...but carry on if you wish. You just help to promote what might be a valuable source of inspiration for others. Of course you'll just slur and demean this in your typical manner. Nothing new.



pj

I'd be delighted if it genuinely was a source of new possibilities for science, but it has added nothing whatever. All it has done has stolen from real scientists and repackaged the material by shifting the attribution to your Imaginary Friends.

You say it with such earnestness, but I can think up a hundred equivalent claims that would appall you. For example, how about if I copied out the UB, changed half of it, added some entirely new material taken from Scientology then attributed it all to an ancient "mysterious" revelation from the Roman pantheon? I could "address" your protests by highlighting your arrogant rejection of the reality of Jupiter and Mars as the main protagonists.

You should rightly think me a crackpot. Why should I not think of you in the same manner?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Stuu,

Beginning to address assertions I've made recreantly, I recalled you asked for more on the "expanding and contracting" theory. More to follow.



Science News - July 28, 2012

“Astrophysicists interrogate one of their most successful theories.”

“One such alternative, developed over the last decade, holds that the universe may not have begun with a single Big Bang, rather experiences cycle after cycle of contraction and expansion.”​

http://www.sciencenewsdigital.org/sciencenews/20120708?pg=23#pg23


(123.6) 11:6.4 The cycles of space respiration extend in each phase for a little more than one billion Urantia years. During one phase the universes expand; during the next they contract. Pervaded space is now approaching the mid-point of the expanding phase, while unpervaded space nears the mid-point of the contracting phase, and we are informed that the outermost limits of both space extensions are, theoretically, now approximately equidistant from Paradise. The unpervaded-space reservoirs now extend vertically above upper Paradise and below nether Paradise just as far as the pervaded space of the universe extends horizontally outward from peripheral Paradise to and even beyond the fourth outer space level.


I've never investigated it, was there a scientist in the 1930's that advanced this theory about a central eternal universe or ultraverse that is the pattern for the material universe that expands and contracts?


Caino

You raise a classic example. What EXACTLY are you suggesting the book of theft has to offer science in regards to this assertion of expansion and contraction over a billion-year timescale?

All you are doing is taking a guess and mapping it onto another guess, one that says nothing about a billion-year oscillation. As the article clearly states, no evidence is explained by this assertion. You are cherry-picking. You find a speculative popular science article that is not outlining a scientific theory, then you excitedly point in the UB and claim the Sadlers knew about it all along. And you conveniently forget in that moment that you had been claiming the UB knew about stuff before science did. But of course it isn't science yet. And even if it was, it was / will be still investigated by real scientists: the UB contains nothing useful for anyone.

How about we also submit the UB's assertion that ACTUALLY all the matter in the Earth (as it is actually called) came from the sun? Should we have scientists scrambling round to discover if they made a mistake with that because apparently the UB contradicts them? What about the UB claim that the universe is older than 987 billion years? Perhaps the WMAP people should have another look at the 13.7 billion year timescale established by different lines of evidence to an error of a hundred million years or so.

Bollocks they should. All you are doing is all the UB ever did, it is stealing and guessing, and the guesses that help a science journalist meet his deadline with a fairly loose piece where scientists are speculating wildly in relation to a similar concept, in a way they never would in a scientific paper, are the ones you highlight while you ignore all the fatuous nonsense that is asserted with equal vigour in the UB.

This is naive and dishonest and displays a complete lack of ability at evaluating claims for plausibility.

Please show me the article in ScienceNews, or wherever, where cosmologists are speculating that the heavy elements found on earth originated in the sun, or that the universe might indeed be more than 987 billion years old, or else please do us all a favour and stop justifying theft in the blatant way you do.

Thanks.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

You raise a classic example. What EXACTLY are you suggesting the book of theft has to offer science in regards to this assertion of expansion and contraction over a billion-year timescale?

All you are doing is taking a guess and mapping it onto another guess, one that says nothing about a billion-year oscillation. As the article clearly states, no evidence is explained by this assertion. You are cherry-picking. You find a speculative popular science article that is not outlining a scientific theory, then you excitedly point in the UB and claim the Sadlers knew about it all along. And you conveniently forget in that moment that you had been claiming the UB knew about stuff before science did. But of course it isn't science yet. And even if it was, it was / will be still investigated by real scientists: the UB contains nothing useful for anyone.

How about we also submit the UB's assertion that ACTUALLY all the matter in the Earth (as it is actually called) came from the sun? Should we have scientists scrambling round to discover if they made a mistake with that because apparently the UB contradicts them? What about the UB claim that the universe is older than 987 billion years? Perhaps the WMAP people should have another look at the 13.7 billion year timescale established by different lines of evidence to an error of a hundred million years or so.

Bollocks they should. All you are doing is all the UB ever did, it is stealing and guessing, and the guesses that help a science journalist meet his deadline with a fairly loose piece where scientists are speculating wildly in relation to a similar concept, in a way they never would in a scientific paper, are the ones you highlight while you ignore all the fatuous nonsense that is asserted with equal vigour in the UB.

This is naive and dishonest and displays a complete lack of ability at evaluating claims for plausibility.

Please show me the article in ScienceNews, or wherever, where cosmologists are speculating that the heavy elements found on earth originated in the sun, or that the universe might indeed be more than 987 billion years old, or else please do us all a favour and stop justifying theft in the blatant way you do.

Thanks.

Stuart

This is why you are not to be taken seriously; you make false accusations while accusing others of dishonesty.

How about we also submit the UB's assertion that ACTUALLY all the matter in the Earth (as it is actually called) came from the sun?

"The internal heat of the earth continued to be augmented by the deeper and deeper burial of the radioactive or heavier elements brought in from space by the meteors."​

The UB isn't saying that ALL matter in the earth came from the sun.

Please show me the article in ScienceNews, or wherever, where cosmologists are speculating that the heavy elements found on earth originated in the sun, or that the universe might indeed be more than 987 billion years old, or else please do us all a favour and stop justifying theft in the blatant way you do.

Theft? Looks more like Steinhart and Turok may have stolen the idea of expansion and contraction from the UB. Even as an unproven theory, was there another scientist promoting this idea when the Urantia revelation was occurring?

Caino

 

[freelight]

what matters.....

what matters.....

I'd be delighted if it genuinely was a source of new possibilities for science, but it has added nothing whatever. All it has done has stolen from real scientists and repackaged the material by shifting the attribution to your Imaginary Friends.

Note my former commentary stands, concerning what it adds to our knowledge of the soul's path of eternal progression, its philosophy, morals, ethics concerning man's relationship with God and others, plus its a wonderful expansion on the Trinity, the divine heirarchy and cosmology in general. The book needs to be considered as a whole. Those who do recognize the terms, meanings and values of the Revelation as a whole can profit thereby, such being a source of inspiration. I dont see a few technicalities over science as discrediting the spiritual/philophical insights given in the papers. Since you're an 'atheist' you have no appreciation for these points....concerning religious experience and spiritual progression of Man. I look to the heart and soul of particular work and draw therefrom. Remember, its about meanings and values relative to time and eternity that is primary in the revelation.

You say it with such earnestness, but I can think up a hundred equivalent claims that would appall you. For example, how about if I copied out the UB, changed half of it, added some entirely new material taken from Scientology then attributed it all to an ancient "mysterious" revelation from the Roman pantheon? I could "address" your protests by highlighting your arrogant rejection of the reality of Jupiter and Mars as the main protagonists.

Readers have been supplied over and over again about the revelators use of human knowledge and the charge of 'plagarism'. Let them make their own decision over the matter by investigating for themselves.

You should rightly think me a crackpot. Why should I not think of you in the same manner?

Stuart

At this point in our discussion on the UB, I dont care what you think about me Stuu since your general demeanor of destroying the UB's credibility on a few specific points which you have an issue over is miniscule compared to the actual mission of the revelators as it concerns man's relationship with God and his divine destiny in an ever expanding cosmos.

I'm a free and liberal spirit, an artisan if you will, - to me this is all just poetry, a play of mind, an adventure of Spirit, an exploration and unfolding of consciousness. Objective or critical science will evolve like any other study as we learn and discover more, this on the outer levels as well as the inner (spiritual). This is what I remain in awe over, the infinity of space and the potentials therein.

I think someone is missing the forest for the trees


In-joy!


Paulie

 

[freelight]

conditional knowledge......

conditional knowledge......

I'd be delighted if it genuinely was a source of new possibilities for science, but it has added nothing whatever.

If you really wanted to investigate if the UB has offered any new insights in science, you'd afford yourself the research.

On science: Science does not have all the answers...for there are things unknown and continually being made known in the stream of space and time.


pj

 

[Stuu]

This is why you are not to be taken seriously; you make false accusations while accusing others of dishonesty.

Do you have an answer to my question about why you are not promoting the 987 billion year timescale as something useable by scientists? Should scientists be reconsidering whether the earth "has its origin in the sun", which previously has been discounted by all lines of evidence?

"The internal heat of the earth continued to be augmented by the deeper and deeper burial of the radioactive or heavier elements brought in from space by the meteors."​

[/INDENT]

The UB isn't saying that ALL matter in the earth came from the sun.

OK, what I should have done is stick to the text, which claims in 57:1.1 "Urantia is of origin in your sun". The difference between the amount of matter in the Earth that accumulated from the accretion disc and the amount that has been added by meteorites is so vast that the word "all" makes little difference to the claim. It's still wrong.

But now the Book of Taking Without Saying Thanks claims that meteors brought in radioactive material. Meteorites characteristically are devoid of the radioactive elements. So, wrong again.

Theft? Looks more like Steinhart and Turok may have stolen the idea of expansion and contraction from the UB. Even as an unproven theory, was there another scientist promoting this idea when the Urantia revelation was occurring?

I recommend great care here Caino. Do you remember what I said about this? Did I credit the expansion / contraction idea to science? No. Did I call it speculation? Yes. Did these guys steal the idea from the UB? Possibly. Does that mean I am being hypocritical? No.

And you accuse me of dishonesty and false accusation.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Note my former commentary stands, concerning what it adds to our knowledge of the soul's path of eternal progression, its philosophy, morals, ethics concerning man's relationship with God and others, plus its a wonderful expansion on the Trinity, the divine heirarchy and cosmology in general. The book needs to be considered as a whole. Those who do recognize the terms, meanings and values of the Revelation as a whole can profit thereby, such being a source of inspiration. I dont see a few technicalities over science as discrediting the spiritual/philophical insights given in the papers. Since you're an 'atheist' you have no appreciation for these points....concerning religious experience and spiritual progression of Man. I look to the heart and soul of particular work and draw therefrom. Remember, its about meanings and values relative to time and eternity that is primary in the revelation.

Perhaps you could answer the question that Caino dodged. On what basis do you comment on my understanding of spirituality? You might take some care to acknowledge that while you are not making claims for science, Caino is, so perhaps you should take up the issue with him.

Readers have been supplied over and over again about the revelators use of human knowledge and the charge of 'plagarism'. Let them make their own decision over the matter by investigating for themselves.

Can you use elevators to get to speak with the revelators? What a load of fatuous bollocks. I guess those who live in a dream world of make-believe don't feel the need to take intellectual property seriously. Personally, I am grateful to the humans who worked with great ingenuity, sometimes at great personal cost to themselves, to bring us a deeper understanding of reality. You abuse that ungratefully, and in the process denigrate your own humanity by referring the achievements of your species to the ghouls and goblins of your fantasy conspiracy. Sad.

At this point in our discussion on the UB, I dont care what you think about me Stuu since your general demeanor of destroying the UB's credibility on a few specific points which you have an issue over is miniscule compared to the actual mission of the revelators as it concerns man's relationship with God and his divine destiny in an ever expanding cosmos.

Hilarious.

I'm a free and liberal spirit, an artisan if you will, - to me this is all just poetry, a play of mind, an adventure of Spirit, an exploration and unfolding of consciousness. Objective or critical science will evolve like any other study as we learn and discover more, this on the outer levels as well as the inner (spiritual). This is what I remain in awe over, the infinity of space and the potentials therein.

And you can be all of those things without being a party to robbery. Actually what does it cost you to acknowledge the humans that discovered the science? Nothing. What do you lose by not doing so? Your credibility.

I think someone is missing the forest for the trees

It's a matter of justice. Rutherford would never for a minute want to limit the availability of his intellectual property to anyone, for free. But there is such a thing as integrity. You are claiming this knowledge in a deceitful way, misappropriating its human origins. That is not a trivial thing, indeed the principle of the epistemology and probity is as important as the stolen property itself.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If you really wanted to investigate if the UB has offered any new insights in science, you'd afford yourself the research.

On science: Science does not have all the answers...for there are things unknown and continually being made known in the stream of space and time.


pj

You seem to assume that I have not researched this. You would be wrong. I have not quite read all of the UB, but I have read probably about 60% of it, certainly covering the papers that refer to science.

I never claimed science has all the answers, but neither you nor Caino have addressed the point that you are not promoting ALL the ideas in the UB as worthy of investigation, you are waiting until you can see a cue somewhere in the scientific world that you believe is an invitation to point out a selected verse. This is cherry-picking, it's no brave claim at all. If you can't tell us that we should be taking seriously the claim that the universe is older than 987 billion years then you have no justification for making any other claims from the book.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Do you have an answer to my question about why you are not promoting the 987 billion year timescale as something useable by scientists? Should scientists be reconsidering whether the earth "has its origin in the sun", which previously has been discounted by all lines of evidence?


OK, what I should have done is stick to the text, which claims in 57:1.1 "Urantia is of origin in your sun". The difference between the amount of matter in the Earth that accumulated from the accretion disc and the amount that has been added by meteorites is so vast that the word "all" makes little difference to the claim. It's still wrong.

But now the Book of Taking Without Saying Thanks claims that meteors brought in radioactive material. Meteorites characteristically are devoid of the radioactive elements. So, wrong again.


I recommend great care here Caino. Do you remember what I said about this? Did I credit the expansion / contraction idea to science? No. Did I call it speculation? Yes. Did these guys steal the idea from the UB? Possibly. Does that mean I am being hypocritical? No.

And you accuse me of dishonesty and false accusation.

Stuart

* The UB is not a science reference manual written for scientist, it's revelation for spiritualist.

* It has been my experience with you here and on other forums that when spirituality is discussed you refer to faith as imaginary. You lack spiritual perception. Former atheist describe this state of mind prior to the spiritual awakening or rebirth.

* If the authors of the UB had NOT told us that they were using over 1000 human sources then yes< I would agree with you that they stole something.

"The gas-contraction nucleuses of the other ten planets soon reached the stage of solidification and so began to draw to themselves increasing quantities of the meteoric matter circulating in near-by space. The worlds of the solar system thus had a double origin: nucleuses of gas condensation later on augmented by the capture of enormous quantities of meteors. Indeed they still continue to capture meteors, but in greatly lessened numbers."​

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

0:12.11 In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

0:12.12 Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.

0:12.13 We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.


0:12.14 [Indited by an Orvonton Divine Counselor, chief of the corps of superuniverse personalities assigned to portray on Urantia the truth concerning the Paradise Deities and the universe of universes.]

Caino

 

[Caino]

You seem to assume that I have not researched this. You would be wrong. I have not quite read all of the UB, but I have read probably about 60% of it, certainly covering the papers that refer to science.

I never claimed science has all the answers, but neither you nor Caino have addressed the point that you are not promoting ALL the ideas in the UB as worthy of investigation, you are waiting until you can see a cue somewhere in the scientific world that you believe is an invitation to point out a selected verse. This is cherry-picking, it's no brave claim at all. If you can't tell us that we should be taking seriously the claim that the universe is older than 987 billion years then you have no justification for making any other claims from the book.

Stuart

Science has no justification to state that there is not an eternal source for the material universe. We aren't telling science they need to believe us. This sin't a science book.



Caino

 

[freelight]

age of the universe

age of the universe

You seem to assume that I have not researched this. You would be wrong. I have not quite read all of the UB, but I have read probably about 60% of it, certainly covering the papers that refer to science.

Good, but my interest is more its philosophical/theological content and context, as I've shared.....a wonderful cosmology as a whole. I dont focus on physical science as much as I do metaphysics...but of course they inter-relate.

I never claimed science has all the answers, but neither you nor Caino have addressed the point that you are not promoting ALL the ideas in the UB as worthy of investigation, you are waiting until you can see a cue somewhere in the scientific world that you believe is an invitation to point out a selected verse. This is cherry-picking, it's no brave claim at all.

I've shared sources where more knowledgable readers and researchers in this particular field have explored where the science in the UB, being 'predictive' or 'problematic'....we could address specifics of course, for all points in any book of importance is worthy of investigation. Again,...my interest is of a more philosophic nature relating our human experience to the greater cosmology and eternal destiny of the soul.

If you can't tell us that we should be taking seriously the claim that the universe is older than 987 billion years then you have no justification for making any other claims from the book.

Obviously the claim of how old the universe is an interesting subject...however that can be proved...and thats the key. The UB's claim could be a human mistake (if such was allowed to creep into the translation process)...or it may bear out to be true with advancing scientific knowledge. I was going to look into this particular point more Is our current estimate of its age....wholly accurate? Is the means in determining such trustworthy? Did the idea of the universe being near trillion years old exist at the time the papers were transcribed...or is it entirely new? Lets look into it.....



pj