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?

[McCulloch]

Some proof of the validity of the Urantia Papers has been attempted by skeptics within the Urantia community. Most of the science revealed in the Papers has proven correct. ...
...It does become a matter of faith. This is circular reasoning, and therefore invalid in debate. ...

From what I've seen, there is no science in the Urantia Book. Science, properly defined, involves hypotheses, testing, evidence and logical reasoning. The UB simply asserts facts to be true. Like other revelations. If there were any science in it, there would have been some details about how to validate or verify the alleged scientific facts asserted in the book. So, from where I sit, it looks just the same as any other religion. Based on faith and not verifiable or falsifyable.

I would be interested on any of the science that shows the Papers proven correct. Can you provide a link?

[Bro Dave]

From what I've seen, there is no science in the Urantia Book. Science, properly defined, involves hypotheses, testing, evidence and logical reasoning. The UB simply asserts facts to be true. Like other revelations. If there were any science in it, there would have been some details about how to validate or verify the alleged scientific facts asserted in the book. So, from where I sit, it looks just the same as any other religion. Based on faith and not verifiable or falsifyable.

I would be interested on any of the science that shows the Papers proven correct. Can you provide a link?

Here are a few:

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/ginsss2.htm

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc100.htm

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/doc093.htm

However, please keep in mind, the UB was not written to justify itself using our pathetic scientific prowes. It is basically a revelation of the LARGER relationship we have with the rest of the physcial universe, and non physical administration of it all. They also advise us that they are not allowed to interfere by "giving us" scientific disclosures, and because of that, sometimes what they can give us has unfortunate, but necessary distorsions. However, since this is not primarily a scientific revelation, it is less important. That having been said, they were still allowed to slip in a few interesting facts, which have subsequently been proven to be true.

I hope this helps,

Bro Dave

[urantiavista]

Howdy all,

McColloch wrote:

I would be interested on any of the science that shows the Papers proven correct. Can you provide a link?

A fellow named Robert "Behz" Sarmast, of Turkish heritage, who is a long time student of the Urantia Papers, has done a tremendous amount of scientific research and physical exploration of the sea floor near the island of Cyprus. He seeks to discover submerged evidence of Eden (Atlantis), and is convinced that this work will corroborate the UPapers rendition of the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden scenario. His research and exploration is well advanced and we will all know of its results within a relatively short time frame.

http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/index.html

Peace

[Arie]

You guys go before me... but I would also like to point out this article as well written by Kermit Anderson...

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/kanders1.htm which is an interesting read on chromosomes and trait determiners which is one of the objections Mr. Belitso got on the Coast to Coast radio show. It's curious because apparently the Vorondadek Son was able to remain consistent with the current scientific standing on chromosomes during the day as well as to anticipate future discoveries. The silly man who went on coast to coast with his objection failed to carefully read the section because it states "trait determiners" in the sex cells of human reproduction NOT chromosomes.

Each chromosome contains 2 trait determiners as shown by the double helix nature of DNA. 22 autosomes plus the X and Y chomosome equals 24.... 24 times 2 equals 48. The role of DNA in trait determination was unknown when the UB came into existence. So... there is no single cell with all 48 trait determiners... but "in the sex cells of human reproduction"... there are 48.

Vorondadek Son....."On Urantia there are forty-eight units of pattern control--trait determiners--in the sex cells of human reproduction." (*397)

Also.. Mr. McCulloch... even if we prove certain aspects of the Urantia Book to your satisfaction... that in no way proves independently that the whole book is true. In fact... for us to give evidence supporting every assertion in the UB would be almost unimaginable to any of us humans. Dave is right... not everything in the book is a revelation... though many, many truths are revealed which is why it is known as the 5th Revelation. Even in the very beginning of the book it states...

"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."

[McCulloch]

From what I've seen, there is no science in the Urantia Book. Science, properly defined, involves hypotheses, testing, evidence and logical reasoning. The UB simply asserts facts to be true. Like other revelations. If there were any science in it, there would have been some details about how to validate or verify the alleged scientific facts asserted in the book. So, from where I sit, it looks just the same as any other religion. Based on faith and not verifiable or falsifyable.
I would be interested on any of the science that shows the Papers proven correct. Can you provide a link?

Here are a few:
http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/ginsss2.htm
http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc100.htm
http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/doc093.htm

However, please keep in mind, the UB was not written to justify itself using our pathetic scientific prowes. It is basically a revelation of the LARGER relationship we have with the rest of the physcial universe, and non physical administration of it all. They also advise us that they are not allowed to interfere by "giving us" scientific disclosures, and because of that, sometimes what they can give us has unfortunate, but necessary distorsions. However, since this is not primarily a scientific revelation, it is less important. That having been said, they were still allowed to slip in a few interesting facts, which have subsequently been proven to be true.

I hope this helps,

Bro Dave

It is one thing to say that the Urantia Book has reference to a few facts which science has subsequently proven to be correct and saying that science proves the Urantia Book.

However:

# Predictions that still disagree with science:
* 1. Continuous creation of matter and energy.
* 2. Creation of our solar system.
* 3. Life implanted on Earth 550 million years ago.
* 4. End of Cretaceous age.
* 5. Breakup of fifth planet from the sun (asteroids).

I guess you must believe that science still has a way to go to catch up with Urantia sources.

[McCulloch]

A fellow named Robert "Behz" Sarmast, of Turkish heritage, who is a long time student of the Urantia Papers, has done a tremendous amount of scientific research and physical exploration of the sea floor near the island of Cyprus. He seeks to discover submerged evidence of Eden (Atlantis), and is convinced that this work will corroborate the UPapers rendition of the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden scenario. His research and exploration is well advanced and we will all know of its results within a relatively short time frame.

I will await the publication of his results. I am hoping that a short time means within my lifetime. Why am I not suprised that scientific proof of the Urantia Book is to be found in Atlantis research?

[McCulloch]

The Similarities Between Plato's ATLANTIS and the Urantia Book's GARDEN OF EDEN -- one of the possible sources of some of the Urantia Book's material?

[McCulloch]

Also.. Mr. McCulloch... even if we prove certain aspects of the Urantia Book to your satisfaction... that in no way proves independently that the whole book is true. In fact... for us to give evidence supporting every assertion in the UB would be almost unimaginable to any of us humans. Dave is right... not everything in the book is a revelation... though many, many truths are revealed which is why it is known as the 5th Revelation. Even in the very beginning of the book it states...

Most revelations come complete with some kind of evidence that the revelation should be trusted. You know, miracles and the like. What kind of evidence, other than its own wonderful insight, is provided for the Urantia Book. How about any evidence that the superplanetary beings exist?
If the only evidence that the Urantia Book is what it claims to be is that it has wonderful spiritual insight, then it sadly fails the test to be used as historical or scientific evidence in debate.

[bernee51]

In fact, if the universe is infinite, it is spreading out in all directions from where I sit. I am at the cenre of infinity. But so is McC in Canada. And so are you Bro Dave. In an infifnte universe all points are at the centre, and none are. It is, like square circles, married bachelors and the biblical god, a logical impossibility.

Bernie, language is the problem.

And that is my problem Dave. I would have thought that the 'Divine Counselor' would have had the skills to communicate effectively within the experience of us mere Urantians. Putting stuff in langualge that is verging on the incomprehensible seems an ineffiecient way to convey such important information.

The UB says the Isle of Paradise lies outside of time and space, with time existing "above", and space existing "below", something like that.

"Or something like that"?

If a thing exists outside of time it is truly infinite. It still doesn't have a centre.

However, it leave us with a "feeling" for it, and that is sufficient for now.

I have a 'feeling' for it and that feeling is familiar. It gets this treatment

As for the "logic", ours is hardly absolute. I was just reading an article that pokes a hole in what we "know" about Quantum Mechanics".
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=1590

And science will decide one way or the other. Repetition of experiments and peer review.

The Urantia 'truths' - ultimate or otherwise, can only be taken on faith.

The UB is not, nor does it perport to be, the ultimate source of truth. Its justs a clearer picture... a much clearer picture than we've had.

I don't agree BroDave. It adds unneeded, unfounded and unlikely complexity to the issue.

[Rob]

Science, properly defined, involves hypotheses, testing, evidence and logical reasoning. The UB simply asserts facts to be true. Like other revelations. If there were any science in it, there would have been some details about how to validate or verify the alleged scientific facts asserted in the book. So, from where I sit, it looks just the same as any other religion. Based on faith and not verifiable or falsifyable.

I would be interested on any of the science that shows the Papers proven correct. Can you provide a link?

-- McCullock, Debating Christianity and Religion Forum: Christianity, The Urantia Book, 11/20/2005

McCullock, I am going to try my best to answer some of your questions. First though, I want to make clear that I do not make any of the claims that have so far been made regarding the Urantia Book on this site. I want to speak for myself, so I will state my own views as I proceed.

Irregardless of what I personally believe about the book, I don't think it is either realistic or reasonable to expect others to take my word (you don't know me from Jack), or even the Urantia Book as valid, without sound, reasonable, and honest critical examination. In fact so far, I think all of McCullock's questions and requests have been fair and valid. I can only share with you the information and facts as I have found them in my research over these last 30+ years, by presenting the evidence, and then examining it together and debating our conclusions and views as to its merit or validity.

First, I want to state what I view are some facts, and see if we can agree upon them:

1) The Urantia Book, claiming to be a revelation, is not a scientific text, but it does make statements and assertions of fact which it internally claims to be true. McCullock is correct in this assertion I believe.

2) Those claims that touch upon material and historical reality, which are historical and scientifically verifiable, are open to investigation to determine if they are valid.

The book does have a lot to say about science, and the role of science in the acquirement of human knowlege, the relationship between science, philosophy, and religion, and the limitations of science. But these issues are not directly related to the question McCullock makes above, so I will focus only upon his request that he be provided some scientific verifiable fact that with regards to claims made in the Urantia Book.

I do not believe that any one of these examples which I am going to present of a statemenet(s) of fact made in the Urantia Book, which were at the time they were made would have been considered incorrect by the scientific establishment, and were later verified by science, proves the Urantia Book is what it claims. I can find an equal number of statements that at this time do not agree with science; does this mean the Urantia Book is wrong, or does this mean that science is incorrect? I don't know, I will take each question, fact, on a case by case basis.

The proof of revelation is only found in each individuals experience with it, and that is a personal experience, wihch while it can be supported by facts such as those that are about to be presented, can never be proven by such facts alone. There is always and ever room for intellectual doubt and honest questions. I still have them to this day.

The Urantia Book in part III, tells the history of earth. There are many historical and factual claims that if they are true should be open to discovery. One of them, is found in the story about the evolution of our physical solar system, its planets, and specifically our earth. In this story it describes how the earth has its origin in a primoridal gaseous hydrogen mass, which as it cooled formed oceans and a crust. When the first supercontinent rose up out of the ocean, the Urantia Book states regarding the beginnings of contiental drift in the section titled "CRUSTAL STABILIZATION THE AGE OF EARTHQUAKES THE WORLD OCEAN AND THE FIRST CONTINENT":

750,000,000 years ago the first breaks in the continental land mass began as the great north-and-south cracking, which later admitted the ocean waters and prepared the way for the westward drift of the continents of North and South America, including Greenland. The long east-and-west cleavage separated Africa from Europe and severed the land masses of Australia, the Pacific Islands, and Antarctica from the Asiatic continent. (Urantia Book 663.1)

The Urantia Book was published in 1955. At that time, the 750 Ma date was not the accepted date by the scientific community. It was not a discovered fact at the time, and in fact, neither were many other facts stated in the Urantia Book known at that time, some of which were only proposed later. The first source I am going to cite is scientist named McMenamin, who examined this date for the 750 Ma initial breakup of the first supercontinent, now refered to as Rodinia:

McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-- http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/mcmenamin/mcmenamin.pdf

I have other references, from Scientific American for example, that support McMenamin's statement that the 750 Ma date was ahead of its time, at least as pertains to the discovery and recognition within the scientific community.

This specific case, it seems to me, raises interesting questions.

I will deal with others in another post.