-
Posts
-
Why should we spend time studying a cosmology which is most likely already outdated? The context of this sentence suggests there is value to be found in spending some effort on this.
Regarding revelation, one reader posted this on another topic.
30:0.2 It is not possible to formulate comprehensive and entirely consistent classifications of the personalities of the grand universe because all of the groups are not revealed. It would require numerous additional papers to cover the further revelation required to systematically classify all groups. Such conceptual expansion would hardly be desirable as it would deprive the thinking mortals of the next thousand years of that stimulus to creative speculation which these partially revealed concepts supply. It is best that man not have an overrevelation; it stifles imagination.I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I would salvage the baby and change the bathwater. After all, our cosmology is evolving along with everything else.102:1.3 Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. The more of science you know, the less sure you can be; the more of religion you have, the more certain you are.George Park wrote: . . . why are we given this knowledge now, at this time, if we are millennia away from this goal?Bradly wrote: Perhaps it is a bridge of knowledge presented to unify and harmonize the manmade conflicts between religion and science or creationism and evolution?I think you are pursuing a valid line of thought Bradly, though science and religion will never fully agree. (103:7.15) Thinking people want to obtain a unified field theory of everything embracing both the personal and the impersonal.4:4.7 In science, God is the First Cause; in religion, the universal and loving Father; in philosophy, the one being who exists by himself, not dependent on any other being for existence but beneficently conferring reality of existence on all things and upon all other beings. But it requires revelation to show that the First Cause of science and the self-existent Unity of philosophy are the God of religion, full of mercy and goodness and pledged to effect the eternal survival of his children on earth.Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world.
Thanks for reminding me of this quote, which is germane to the original question. If the Book’s description of how the universe is organized gives the basic outlines of the cosmology of Light & Life, shouldn’t it reflect something that is eternally true about the universe? Shouldn’t this cosmology have elements of genuine religious truth, which should not be slighted because of the presence of certain obsolete ideas about the material world?
. . . shouldn’t it reflect something that is eternally true about the universe?
By this question you seem to imply the book does not reflect something that is eternally true about the universe. I gather you are a long time readers and student of it. Perhaps you or someone else can offer an answer to this question.Shouldn’t this cosmology have elements of genuine religious truth, which should not be slighted because of the presence of certain obsolete ideas about the material world?
I know people who dismissed the book because they either disagreed with the science or disagreed with the religion. I think the genuineness of religious truth is personal – entirely personal. People will find what they seek, or they will discard it.
tas,
What you presented about Andromeda and the “one million years ago” issue, has opened my eyes. Now I get it.
Thank you.
By this question you seem to imply the book does not reflect something that is eternally true about the universe.
I must have phrased things confusingly, then, because I believe there is something eternally true in the cosmology the Book presents. I agree with you that the genuineness of religious truth is determined in an entirely personal way. Since there is, as yet, no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology presented in the Book, it would seem that the essential truth of the scientific view it presents can only be discerned based upon faith, a purely personal experience.
While many believe that the religious and scientific viewpoints fundamentally contradict one another, these teachings tell us that they are reconciled in the unity of a higher truth.
My confidence in the presentations in the UB do not require that the incomplete cosmology regarding science be defended or accepted as is given. However, I am amused by those who display such earnest faith and confidence in modern science when it conflicts or contradicts the UB….as it also inherently conflicts and contradicts prior and current ‘knowledge’ and ‘facts’. I’m unsure that the Andromeda example will hold water…or not much longer. I think the scientific method to be sound but in its soundness it constantly and relentlessly requires whole new theories to “explain” observable phenomena. New observation techniques deliver ever more phenomena to explain and forever requires changes to prior and current theory.
As to how quickly light from Andromeda got here….I wonder can anyone tell us the speed of light in space and not within a controlled vacuum? If so….you are the first on Urantia to do so. What’s the distance of a light year? How is that determined? How is it affected in space? We know it can be slowed…can it also be accelerated by factors and forces unknown to modern, mortal science?
Just because cosmology will require revision and no unearned knowledge has been included does not necessarily ‘prove’ anything at all that modern science currently theorizes or claims as fact. Patience and time will reveal the unity of the managed universes of time and the accuracy of our world’s history. Until then I will let the scientific method continue to discover all that it does not yet understand and discover ever more observed phenomena to confound science and demand new possibilities for the forces of such a managed system of reality.
But one thing is certain, science will come to determine that the current claim of 2.5 million light years in distance is inaccurate. I don’t know by how much and it certainly may not be one million…..but unless there is nothing but vacuum between here and there, it’s also not 2.5 mm. Or I doubt that very much as many scientists doubt the accuracy of the speed of light in actual space and time. What are the factors of distortion over such distances? We are just beginning to discover those.
No biggie to me…but we should be cautious how much we depend upon current scientific conclusions or theories for much…as the method cares nothing for today’s beliefs or theories. I have a feeling that science is revealing and has revealed much that is provided us in the UB.
The topic however is about the cosmology of L&L and its inclusion in the Papers. A rather thrilling and inspirational perspective on the eternal adventure and the reality of evolutionary perfecting over time. Thanks to all, very interesting.
George Park wrote: . . . it would seem that the essential truth of the scientific view it presents can only be discerned based upon faith, a purely personal experience.
The “essential truth of the scientific view” is a view from outward looking within and involves accepted and well-defined methods of science. Faith is a view from inward looking outward. We will never put faith under a microscope. Nor can we put love under a microscope. Faith and love are purely personal experiences. I think *belief* is an act of one’s mind. People believe or disbelieve according to their preferences and predilections.
103:7.6 [. . .] Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.
We’re supposed to have *faith* to ourselves. (99:5.7 )
Since there is, as yet, no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology presented in the Book. . . .
I’m not a scientist. I consume science from various media sound-bites. Sooner or later the commonly recognized scientific evidence supporting the cosmology in the book will be overridden by new findings. What then? Will students of the future dismiss the cosmology in book due its archaic information?
.
But at the time of the indicting of the revelation, the revelators informed us of this:
88:6.8 [. . .] Today, Urantia is in the twilight zone of this intellectual evolution. One half the world is grasping eagerly for the light of truth and the facts of scientific discovery, while the other half languishes in the arms of ancient superstition and but thinly disguised magic.
One day astronomers will discover these space levels, and then we will know exactly where Paradise is located in the universe. Nowhere else is there found the idea that the Supreme Being is physically limited to the evolving grand universe, which encompasses the central and superuniverse space levels.
I wonder, though, if our astronomers will ever know ‘exactly where Paradise is located in the universe’ – during their mortal lives? We are told that Paradise has no location in space.
11:2.10 (120.2) It appears to us that the First Source and Center has concentrated all absolute potential for cosmic reality in Paradise as a part of his technique of self-liberation from infinity limitations, as a means of making possible subinfinite, even time-space, creation. But it does not follow that Paradise is time-space limited just because the universe of universes discloses these qualities. Paradise exists without time and has no location in space.
0:4.12 (7.10) The Isle of Paradise — Paradise not otherwise qualified — is the Absolute of the material-gravity control of the First Source and Center. Paradise is motionless, being the only stationary thing in the universe of universes. The Isle of Paradise has a universe location but no position in space. This eternal Isle is the actual source of the physical universes — past, present, and future. The nuclear Isle of Light is a Deity derivative, but it is hardly Deity; neither are the material creations a part of Deity; they are a consequence.
I wonder, though, if our astronomers will ever know ‘exactly where Paradise is located in the universe’ – during their mortal lives? We are told that Paradise has no location in space.
It is true that we are told Paradise does not exist in space. But we are also told “The Isle of Paradise has a universe location.” It is outside of the time and space of the master universe, but it still has a location relative to the largest physical structures in the master universe; it is located at the center of the concentrically arranged space levels of the master universe. We will never be able to directly observe Paradise or the central universe, because Havona is concealed behind the wall of dark gravity bodies encircling the central creation. But astronomers will, one day, identify the superuniverse and outer space levels, and the common center of these concentrically arranged structures will reveal the location of Paradise. At least it will to those who trust in the truth of these teachings, which tell us Paradise is located at this common universal center of revolution.
It seems impossible to us that there should be no space or time at the center of the master universe, all of which exists in space and time. We cannot really imagine that space is not infinite in extent, yet “there are physical limits to the material universe.” (12:0.3) We cannot really understand how there can be anything real in the absence of space and time. “But it does not follow that Paradise is time-space limited just because the universe of universes discloses these qualities.” (11:2.10) It is not strange, really, that we should find it so difficult to conceive of these things. After all, the Isle of Paradise is one of the Seven Absolutes of Infinity.
Sooner or later the commonly recognized scientific evidence supporting the cosmology in the book will be overridden by new findings. What then? Will students of the future dismiss the cosmology in book due its archaic information?
As far as I’m aware, there is currently no commonly recognized scientific evidence which supports the cosmology of Light and Life. For this reason, what the Book says about how the universe is organized is considered pure fantasy by more than a few, such as the science writer Martin Gardner. Its “fantastic” cosmology already raises grave doubts in the minds of many about the authenticity of its claim to be a revelation. How could a supposed revelation contain such a ridiculous cosmology? Your “What then?” is actually happening right now, it seems to me. No wonder students of the Book are so hesitant to bring up its cosmology, when it is so very easy for the scientifically inclined to dismiss it as an absurd fairytale.
But if the cosmology in the Book is essentially true, there will come a time when scientific discovery begins to produce hard empirical evidence that the galaxies of the universe are concentrated in concentrically arranged rings. What then will be the response of the world, I wonder, to the Book which predicted this long before anyone could have possibly known it?
In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space. (12:2.3)
This was written in 1934, when only tens of thousands of galaxies were catalogued. Due to remarkable technological advances over just the last 20 years, hundreds of millions of galaxies have now been identified and catalogued. We are “in the not-distant future” they wrote about more than 80 years ago. What if hard evidence for the existence of various space levels has already been obtained? What if their discovery is just waiting for someone to look for them in this sudden overabundance of new observations?
No wonder students of the Book are so hesitant to bring up its cosmology, when it is so very easy for the scientifically inclined to dismiss it as an absurd fairytale.
There are a few like you who are scientifically inclined (interested in the cosmology of the book) who also are interested in the other parts of the book. The upcoming Scientific Symposium is the fourth event focused on the subject. I think the reason most students of the book are hesitant to bring it up is related to the paucity of knowledge of most students of what is currently known about the structure of the universe/s, both macro-knowledge as well as micro/nano. We are not schooled in the subject. Don’t you think naysayers are part and parcel of our society? Perhaps naysayers about the book will give reason for people to discover the book for themselves. Who knows?
.
But students do get what’s in the book that pertains to the personal. The Jesus apers seem to be everyone’s favorite part, though a few weeks ago my study group studied the Foreward over several weeks, and one reader said the Foreword was her favorite part of the book! Others are interested in its cosmology. I am stimulated by the science parts of the book. I do think, however, the real messages of the book are relevant and significant to the scientist, as a person, not the future obsolescence of its cosmology.
195:7.18 Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it.102:6.10 Organic evolution is a fact; purposive or progressive evolution is a truth which makes consistent the otherwise contradictory phenomena of the ever-ascending achievements of evolution. The higher any scientist progresses in his chosen science, the more will he abandon the theories of materialistic fact in favor of the cosmic truth of the dominance of the Supreme Mind. Materialism cheapens human life; the gospel of Jesus tremendously enhances and supernally exalts every mortal. Mortal existence must be visualized as consisting in the intriguing and fascinating experience of the realization of the reality of the meeting of the human upreach and the divine and saving downreach.We are “in the not-distant future” they wrote about more than 80 years ago.
Can you interpret for us “in the not-distant future”? Thank you George.
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.