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?

[bernee51]

Well that's some fine but kissing Dave but if you think this place is well moderated......well then off to internet discussion forum board school with ya.

I think I see what the problem is here. You are seem to be of the idea that this is a 'discussion forum', Perhaps somewhat like one's I have seen where like minded people who all believe the same thing sit around and pat each other on the back for being the only smart ones in the universe while fiddling around the edges 'discussing' detail.

This is actually a 'debate' forum. Where people who make claims are expected (for some silly reason known only to the moderators) to back them up with evidence.

[Arrow]

HOWDY.

Very interesting debate.

I'm not convinced that an accurate prediction of solar calcium values by UB will tip this debate, but just in case, I have a question.

McCullcoch 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.

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).

Thanks,

Arrow

[Bro Dave]

I think I see what the problem is here. You are seem to be of the idea that this is a 'discussion forum', Perhaps somewhat like one's I have seen where like minded people who all believe the same thing sit around and pat each other on the back for being the only smart ones in the universe while fiddling around the edges 'discussing' detail.

This is actually a 'debate' forum. Where people who make claims are expected (for some silly reason known only to the moderators) to back them up with evidence.

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.

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.

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

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.

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).

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.

[Woody]

Hey again Bernee,

you- The universe is self-administered

Say what?

To mortal eyes and the eyes of physical science....the "universe"....meaning....all that stuff in space out there.....is a bunch of rocks, burning gas giants (stars) and a variety of other stuff like gas clouds, comets and the like.

So do tell us how a rock administrates itself?

Do the rocks out in your backyard administrate themselves?

Stuff doesn't just happen.

Only an intelligent person can administrate. A machine cannot administrate.

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

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

I find the UB to be the most brilliant literatary work that I have ever seen. However if you find it dull and dry.....well that an opinion which you are entitled to have and feel.......but again......you one preused it for a short while and then stopped. Whose "fault" is that?

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.

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.

The truth will make you free

Best reguards, learn well

[/i]

[QED]

Do the rocks out in your backyard administrate themselves?

Stuff doesn't just happen.

Only an intelligent person can administrate. A machine cannot administrate.

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

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

In which case the UB is not the infallible fountain of wisdom that some are claiming it to be. If indeed it does overlook principles of self-organization in its explanations then we have a clear indication that the authors, far from being divinely informed, were basing the content on their own interpretations of the world as they saw it at face value. Since the writing the book researchers in the latter half of the 20th century have discovered previously unknown principles of self-organization. Such principles are widespread at all scales in nature.

[Woody]

Hi QED,

Well I will accept your statment as an opinion and not as a statment of fact which is the way you worded it.

TNX Woody

[QED]

Hi QED,

Well I will accept your statment as an opinion and not as a statment of fact which is the way you worded it.

TNX Woody

It is not merely my opinion that Stuff does just happen and that not only can intelligent persons administrate... machines can also administrate. Those things are fact.

You held a contrary view to this stating that it was "explained in great and exhaustive detail in the UB". Therefore I drew a simple logical conclusion that the UB was not as well informed as you claim it to be.

[Woody]

Well ya'll have a good day.

I think I'll be moving along.

I desire to attempt to share with others good things that I know, and most the crowd here just wants to argue and play silly debate and ciruclar logic games.

Not interested

See ya around. No hard feelings...just have other and better things to do.

[Rob]