The Urantia Book

[McCulloch]

Yes, there is the eye witness account [to Jesus' resurrection] given in the Urantia Book.

Bro Dave has put forward the Book as eyewitness testimony to support the allegation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

[Colter]

Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

I know of no proof to affirm this. One should also note that the Jewish authorities did not find sufficiant evidence to prove the identity of Christ either and subsequently conspired to put Jesus to death.

So called "authorities have had a long and rich tradition of rejecting anything new especially when it challenges their cherished conceit.

[bernee51]

Hey again Bernee,

you- The universe is self-administered

Say what?

It is obvious that the universe and all in it, you included, are is a state of evolution.

To administer, as I understand it, means "to manage the affairs of..."

As there is no evidence for any other entity doing it I feel it is appropriate to acknowledge that the universe self-administers.

So do tell us how a rock administrates itself?

Do the rocks out in your backyard administrate themselves?

For someone who has read and, presumably understood (at least in part) the wonder that is Urantia, you seem to have a very foreshortened view of things.

Stuff doesn't just happen.

Yes it does.

Life is about animate objects. The inanimate ones are window dressing.

All is star dust - just arranged differently

Again....not to bore you my friend.... but all of this is explained in great and exhaustive detail in the UB.

You are not so boring...UB on the other hand....

I find the UB to be the most brilliant literatary work that I have ever seen.

UB is the MOST brilliant literary work you have seen?

What else have you read?

I say bite the bullet and give it another try and read it all this time.....unless you chance to be afraid that you might learn something that may upset the status quo of your ego structure.

Such passive aggressive ad homs won't get you to far here. But I note that you are leaving (or claim to be) anyway.

I can only think - heat and kitchens.

Honesty begins with oneself. You have to decide to be honest with yourself before you can begin to practice true honesty with others. And in this process, if you're not careful...you might also come accross some truth. And if perchance, some newly acquired truth-acceptance makes you look bad.....well better to learn to deal with that now rather than later.

More patronizing advice from someone who believes fantasy is fact.

It would appear that it is you who is having difficulty with dearly held beliefs being challenged.

The truth will make you free

Actually it is 'truthfullness' which sets one free.

[bernee51]

Bernie, my fault I fear... I put up a post on TruthBook, inviting folks to participate in the "discussion". And, you are correct in the assumption they are used to like minded folks more or less agreeing in those discussions. So, I'm afraid they were unprepared for the in-your-face kinds of exchanges that sometime happen, especially on this kind of thread.

I gathered as much from comments made in response to being challenged. It is a pity really.

I realized long ago that maximum growth (evolution) occurs at the border of challenge and support.

Let me add one last thing here; I have always admired your honest intellectual approach to our discussions. Proof of that is in you actually examining the UB. I really did not expect you to accept it, but I think exposure to "alien" ideas is always enlightening. I'm sure it will come in to play in our future discussions as well.

Thank you for the kind words. Likewise, while I still belive that Urantia is a fantasy and, despite some people's claims of its 'literary brilliance', badly written, I do appreciate your honest and respectful manner.

[bernee51]

The Urantia Book is revelation fROM authoritative sources....not authored by human beings. It is therefor different from the rest. Very different.

Is this not the same claim made of the bible? It too is a 'revelation' made by god using human hands to jot down the notes. And isn't the Koran claimed to be dictated to Mohammed by an angel?

More 'revelation'.

Give me one reason why I should see the UB as anything different.

I've never come across a single UB reader-believer who was otherwise stupid.

And I know bible believers with PhD's. Your point?

I have no time to read and study fiction. I'm not interested. My wife likes to sit around and read novels but I do not. I am science and history minded as well as chancing to have a belief in intelligent creation.

So you believe in ID 'by chance'. That is an interesting way to come to such a belief - from one who claims to be 'science minded'.

To accept this scenario requires faith....a function of motivated personal experience.

As does any 'religious' belief. Faith does not fact make.

As you say - you are motivated to believe. We humans are obviously motivated to attach ourselves to things which give meaning and legitamcy to our lives in the face of uncertainty. For you it is UB, for Al it is the bible, for little Tom it is scientology.

You...at some point in the process...will have to make a decision as to whether or not you want to take this food from me.....that I am freely offering to share with you.....and eat it. Or take a chance on possibly going hungry.

A eucharist analogy then even resorting to Pascal's wager.

Your roots are showing.

[Arrow]

Howdy.

Forgive me if I back up a little to post on an unresolved issue somewhat closer to the topic.

McCulloch wrote:
I will not argue about there being plenty of calcium in the sun. However, the authors of the Urantia Book explicitly make the claim that "there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick. " By my rough calculation, a calcium layer six thousand miles thick on the surface of the sun would make the sun about 2 per cent calcium. Current estimates put calcium at about 0.00019% of the sun. Somebody is off by more than a few orders of magnitude.

Arrow wrote:
I was wondering, in these calculations, what figure was used as the density for gaseous calcium? Wouldn't this vary with temperature?(I assume we are referring to per cent by mass, not volume).


Mc replies:I did my admittedly very rough calculations based on volume not mass. Feel free to re do them using mass and a reasonable value for the densities of the gasses. That might reduce the 10,000 times order of magnitude discrepency somewhat. Let me know.

I did a little solar research. Other sources (Wikipedia for one) cite solar compositions as percentage of mass. The source you cite does not specify which, but its numbers are in general agreement with other sources, so I guess they must refer to mass as well.

It seems you've calculated percentage by volume using percentage by mass numbers. A pretty rough calculation, indeed. The result of such a calculation is , of course, meaningless.

As for someone being off by several orders of magnitude, well.... As for reducing the "discrepancy" somewhat, since it's hard to have a discrepancy with a number that is meaningless, I'd say the discrepancy never existed. Thus your implication that this constitutes an example of where current science and UB disagree is not supported. Sorry, bro.

For the record, this in no way supports statements or validates anything about UB. A false argument against a proposition does not make the proposition true.

So, I figured as long as I'd come this far, I might as well do the calculations. Since math is hard to type, I'll describe the operations.

First, I figured the volume of a 6000 mile deep layer at the surface of the sun, 2.28x10^16 cubic kilometers. (Sound familiar, Mc?) Then, using the mass of the sun and the percentage calcium from your source, I calculate the mass of calcium present to be 7.18x10^18 kilograms. Using these numbers it is a simple calculation to yield the density of the supposed gaseous calcium. 3.15x10^-4 grams per cubic meter.
Is this a reasonable number for gaseous calcium?

I don't know. The research I did on solar gasses revealed that they were actually plasmas at the surface. Plasma densities for the surface of the sun were given, but in particles per cubic meter rather than grams per cubic meter. I haven't figured out how to relate the two, but I will say this: Even if my calculations matched the UB numbers exactly it would prove nothing. I had to make a handful of dangerous assumptions to get where I could calculate anything at all. Not to mention the possibility of simple computational errors (I have no one to check my work). Any positive correlation might just as well be a happy congregation of errors. In the end, my research and calculations, while perhaps more diligent and more accurate than Mc's, are no more helpful to the discussion.

I don't know if UB is true, in part or as a whole. It doesn't matter to me. But if the point of this debate is to detemine whether it is reliable, or should be dismissed, in a debate forum we should be extra careful to avoid careless assertions, and perhaps leave the science to experts.

Mc: Nice tag line. My favorite verse.

Peace

Arrow

[Dilettante]

The Urantia Book, according to Mr Martin Gardner, who investigated the issue in depth, was "channeled" by Wilfred Kellogg, Mrs Sadler's brother-in-law, and the son of an Adventist minister. He was related to the Battle Creek Kelloggs.
Why the name "Urantia"? A possible explanation is that Urania (without the "t"") was the Greek muse of astronomy, and she was also considered a personification of the love that unites the earth and the universe. A very good choice, just add the missing "t" and you have a new name for planet earth.
Extraterrestrials have nowadays taken the place of the Hellenistic daemons. Belief in several non-human persons as having power over us is characteristic of the second phase of religious development, according to Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno, just as belief in man's communion with numinous animals is typical of the first or primary phase. This primary phase has, to a certain extent, made a bit of a comeback in the form of animal liberationist ideology and the Great Ape Project. The second phase is present in the Urantia Book following and other new religious movements which stress the importance of extraterrestrial beings, such as the Raelians.
I have tried to read the massive Urantia Book, but the tome made little sense to me. I found the Bible's prose more beautiful (especially the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon). I have also tried to read the Book of Mormon several times, and I almost finished it once. However, I found it too dull and quit before I reached the last few chapters.

[urantiavista]

Is the Urantia Book a reliable source of information? Does it meet the criterion used by historians or scientists or theologians?

Thanks to the administrators of this list as well as the participants' demeanor I'm privy to so far, I find myself enjoying this thread.

This foray into an attempted determination of the reliability of the UPapers in view of accepted criteria seems especially suited for this site.
An added benefit derived from the debate modus operandi is to filter out the "hanger's-on" new-age spiritisims/belief systems which have unfortunately become pubicly associated with though unsupported by the Urantia revelation.

On a Urantia Book oriented "discussion" list, such reliability is sine quo non, but not so here - and I find that just as well, since I have no need to prove or proselytize. A friend just today wrote: "One can prove the existence of the Urantia Book; however one can only have belief in its contents as true, unless its claims can be proven to be so."

While having no futher relevant evidence to submit tonight, I would offer, if I may (as the thread has tended to wander a bit ;>), anecdotal detail from my own experience. My first impression (1980) of the UPapers as I did some spot scanning in a bookstore was that a devotee of Timothy Leary had fried nearly all his mind "circuits" and gone on a very long trip. It was the following year that I was challenged to give it a fair critique. I determined to withold final judgement until after a full and careful reading from cover to cover, no matter how ludicrous the contents might appear. I was quite confident the result would be a resounding debunk. The foreward got me to sit up and take notice, and I spent the next 3 weeks (with little sleep) reading. Might I say that I've lost interest in refuting the UPapers now after 25 years? There's more to it than meets the eye, friends...

In good spirit,
urantiavista

[Woody]

Hello to you also Urantiavista, another compatriot from the Truthbook site.

Truthbook and UB reader friends.....you utterly waste your time here. It was a nice thought as it always is to attempt to share this good thing that you know you have with others.....but the "naysayers" here simply arn't interested.

There's nothing personal about it....no hard feelings.....they're just simply not interested.

You, we, have offered to strive with these nice folks for a few days and it's been somewhat less fun than a barrel of monkeys at the circus....and for your efforts you...we've been kicked in the teeth.

So unless you're some sort of glutton for punishment, perhaps we should wander over to the next village and proclaim the good news to a different crowd....just as Jesus instructed His apostles and deciples.

Any further here is wasting your time but hey.....you don't take orders from me. Keep banging your head into the wall here if ya want.

[Sandycane]

edit

[Rob]

I don't know if UB is true, in part or as a whole. It doesn't matter to me. But if the point of this debate is to detemine whether it is reliable, or should be dismissed, in a debate forum we should be extra careful to avoid careless assertions, and perhaps leave the science to experts.

Arrow,

I don't have an answer to the question, nor do I claim the Urantia Book is correct or incorrect, I simply don't know with regards to this specific issue. I find your reasoning and logic good, and admire your humility. I agree, that "in a debate forum we should be extra careful to avoid careless assertions, and perhaps leave the science to experts."

I would even add, that it sometimes is good to consult multiple experts, and see if they agree, for I have found in my history of science studies that to assume they do does not always turn out to be true. Sometimes, there are critical assumptions that make the difference between one conclusion and another, and experts differ on which assumptions they choose to use.

What does that mean? Well, I guess all it means is science is an unfinished enterprise, but it is the greatest enterprise we have for learning about the material universe we live within.

The following information does not solve or answer the question, but just puts some more information in the pot:

The thickness of the calcium layer in the chromosphere of the sun is given in the following passage in the Uranita Book:


[quote=""Urantia Book"]This explains why there is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick;..." (462.1)

Stars and Atoms states that:

The layer of calcium suspended on the sunlight is at least 5000 miles thick." (Stars and Atoms, Sir Arthur Eddington, 1927)

By inspection we see that these two statements contain essentially the same information, although one number is an absolute thickness, and the other is a minimum thickness.

Current science states that the thickness of the calcium layer, or chromosphere, is 2000 km, or about 1,243 miles thick. This information can be found at:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/YPOP/S ... cture.html

Another source, http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/sun.html, gives this thickness as 10,000 km or 6,214 miles which is in agreement with the UB value. At this point in time I am unable to conclude whether the UB value is correct or in error.

Another issue to be considered is just what is the chromosphere in relation to the "calcium layer?" Most determinations of the thickness of the chromosphere are based on measurements of radiation from hydrogen, not calcium.

Also, does this layer include the thickness of the spicules which themselves are about 6,000 miles high?[/quote]