'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd guess because this is a discussion forum and not YouTube, which is what you would use if all you wanted to do was post a video and gather comments on it. 

This is not really that complicated, Will needs no defending here he didn't do anything really wrong.  He plopped a 75 minute video with zero description in a post, it is more than reasonable to ask for something specific to discuss or watch as opposed to dedicating a tenth of our daily waking hours to watching an unknown video for an unknown purpose in support of an unknown point.  I don't think there's anything wrong with Will just posting the video but don't know why you are having trouble understanding the reasonable response to it.

Yea, neither of the above are true.  I've never had an argument with psyche for example about evolution, because there is no cause for one, because we agree.  Your second line is even worse; a novice like me approaching the Urantia material and going through it for the first time may result in me not understanding it, but an expert like Will's explanation could offer plenty of new understandings.  As it would with any other expert, especially I'd argue when the subject is theological.  Which is why at the very least it'd be cooler if Will chose one of the topics in the video he finds compelling and maybe pointed to what timeframe in the video it is discussed, that is if he doesn't have time to put what he'd like to discuss into his own words which would be the ideal.  It seems to have something to do with cosmology validating Urantia, it sounds kinda interesting actually, but since I'm not an expert on Urantia as 8 already noted this would be an ideal situation for an expert like Will to provide some explanation and focus.  

Well stated. To me, Rashore was simply trying to engage Will in a conversation out of interest. I do the same all the time, I ask questions all the time with Will. He answers too and says thanks for asking too.
 

‘If I was to ask anyone about the UB it would be Will, by far this book is his passion and he is the go to on the UB as far as I am concerned. 
 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

On 11/29/2021 at 4:36 AM, Will Due said:

I think that what the Urantia Book reveals about cosmology compared to all of discussions that I run into from time to time, is that they support what the Urantia Book reveals. I won't provide links because anyone who pays attention to what the latest findings are, already knows what they are.

You've said this before though. Danny in particular went to a great deal of trouble to extract claims from the UB  and clearly illustrated how incorrect many are. Clearly modern cosmology doesn't line up with the UB. 

No point in mentioning them at all if you are going to assume others have already come to the conclusion that you have, and ignore the actual claims. 

No, others don't know the correlations you create or the mistakes you ignore to come to that conclusion. Posting videos that support your thoughts don't validate them. It just offers the impression that you can't think for yourself. 

[quiXilver]

On 11/22/2021 at 7:31 PM, Will Due said:

 

"in every dark hour, at every crossroad in the forward struggle, the Spirit of Truth will always speak, saying, “This is the way.”

 

 

says the human

On 11/28/2021 at 10:06 AM, Will Due said:

 

When you watch the video all of those questions will be answered.

 

 

video of more humans talking

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'd guess because this is a discussion forum and not YouTube, which is what you would use if all you wanted to do was post a video and gather comments on it. 

This is not really that complicated, Will needs no defending here he didn't do anything really wrong.  He plopped a 75 minute video with zero description in a post, it is more than reasonable to ask for something specific to discuss or watch as opposed to dedicating a tenth of our daily waking hours to watching an unknown video for an unknown purpose in support of an unknown point.  I don't think there's anything wrong with Will just posting the video but don't know why you are having trouble understanding the reasonable response to it.

Yea, neither of the above are true.  I've never had an argument with psyche for example about evolution, because there is no cause for one, because we agree.  Your second line is even worse; a novice like me approaching the Urantia material and going through it for the first time may result in me not understanding it, but an expert like Will's explanation could offer plenty of new understandings.  As it would with any other expert, especially I'd argue when the subject is theological.  Which is why at the very least it'd be cooler if Will chose one of the topics in the video he finds compelling and maybe pointed to what timeframe in the video it is discussed, that is if he doesn't have time to put what he'd like to discuss into his own words which would be the ideal.  It seems to have something to do with cosmology validating Urantia, it sounds kinda interesting actually, but since I'm not an expert on Urantia as 8 already noted this would be an ideal situation for an expert like Will to provide some explanation and focus.  

But "you" were asked to do something before discussion began, in order to facilitate discussion.

Will asked for peole to watch the video and then discuss it. 

When you ask Will for HIS summary you will get just that 

but you or others need to  watch it to construct  your own summary which can then be compared to Will's 

"The points" will remain "unknown" until you watch the video and form your own views.

  we do not argue with people or opinions which closely align with our own, although no two views are ever identical coming from  individual minds   A deep discussion between you and Psyche would reveal some differences in your understanding of evolution, although they would  be similar enough for you to stand together on common ground 

I am probably too suspicious, but when you say something like 

"a novice like me approaching the Urantia material and going through it for the first time may result in me not understanding it, but an expert like Will's explanation could offer plenty of new understandings. "

 I don't believe that is your true motivation. (and I apologise if I am wrong)  

You have a strong view on those papers etc You have just said that you are an evolutionist  which will make it very difficult to accept  them, unless you did it on faith.

  Someone else's explanation is not going to alter  that strong opinion  

More significantly, you make my argument for me 

Anyone with a true interest in such a subject MUST read and think about it for themselves , not come to it via the thoughts, beliefs, or opinions, of another. 

So you really shouldn't listen to anything Will has to say until you have read, and applied your own mind to the material 

Ps from  what I've read on the criticism of the science of the Urantia papers, quite a lot of  it  (Urantia science) is wrong, but a couple of  things were correctly outlined  before they were scientifically established 

However it is a bit like accepting the bible as scientifically correct 

That is neither the purpose of these writings, nor the way they should be valued or judged. 

If true they represent one of many  human contacts with the cosmic consciousness.  They then are the words of the human mind  in contact with the consciousness and expressed it it's language using it's own knowledge and understandings 

Such contact is ALWAYS limited to, and by, the knowldge and understanding  of the people who make the contact 

Eg "god" can't outline quantum physics to a person before  the y have some abilty to understand it.  "god "can't even transfer the knowledge and understanding of bacteria or blood types, before human science and technology is such that a human can at least understand the technical concept, if not the details   

It would simply be impossible.  At best they would see it in terms of magic.  

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Anyone with a true interest in such a subject MUST read and think about it for themselves , not come to it via the thoughts, beliefs, or opinions, of another. 

This seems curious in light of your often expressed viewpoint endorsing experts in another domain covered by the Urantia Book, What Jesus said and did on Earth, if anything. According to you, in that domain, we who read and think about that subject for ourselves should adopt the thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of experts instead.

We aren't even talking about adopting anybody else's opinion here in this thread. Will simply posted a long video. It isn't just that he didn't tell us his opinion about it. He didn't tell us anything about the video, why he posted that instead of something else, what aspects of the video he wanted us to comment upon - nothing.

There are no two ways about it, as @Liquid Gardens correctly says, Will is an expert on the UB. I am not. The people in the video's preview pane all are or were experts in astronomy and cosmology. I am not.

I needed some guidance. Based on the information that emerged in the give-and-take, apparently UB gets some things right in its cosmology. OK, but I am never going to be personally qualified to come to that conclusion confidently, and surely not after watching a YouTube video. Meanwhile, so what if it got its cosmology correct?

There's a basic principle of uncertainty management that applies here. Don't spend resources to acquire information that isn't going to change how you behave in life. Whether or not the Urantia Book gets its cosmology right is not going to change anything in my life, I don't and never will know enough cosmology to judge the book on that basis.

If I'm going to spend an hour plus thinking about the UB, then let me spend the time on something that might make some difference to me. With some help from his friends, Will did finally provide enough information about the video for me to decide. I didn't watch this video. THIS video; maybe next time he'll post something else and I'll engage with that.

Edited November 30, 2021 by eight bits

[Will Due]

 

In general, and in my opinion, these are the three main categories the writers of the papers address:

1. Cosmology
2. History
3. The life and teachings of Jesus

The premise of this thread is focused on the first category. Primarily, certain matters the authors of the papers have revealed that are of a scientific nature. Plus how science is coming closer and closer to finding evidence that these things are true.

Except for discussing the revelation that the universe has a center, by and large, I have generally avoided discussing things that diverge from the teachings of Jesus. But since this thread is not focused on that, I will oblige.

It appears that Luis started this thread to address the specifics of how science is validating the revelation. That some of the current findings of science are falling more and more in line with the scientific revelations. That's what Nigel Nunn's and George Park's videos examine. 

Some of those things are:

1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center.

2. That there are two types of gravity, linear gravity, such as between two objects of mass like the earth and moon and absolute gravity, which acts from the center of the universe on every object of mass in existence, independent of linear gravity.

3. That the "ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy" is a "minute sphere" which transmutes "into the circuits and revolutions of the electron". In other words, the ultimaton is the fundamental particle scientists are looking for that make up the neutrons and electrons of atoms.

The revelations outlined of a scientific nature are important because when they eventually become validated in the future, they will help to substantiate the more important parts of the revelation. Then all of it in turn will establish the groundwork for realizing other things. Even things that may not be revealed in the papers. And this taken altogether, will ultimately provide a more accurate "universe frame in which to think" making it easier to make sense of much more; than just words on paper.
 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Will Due

[eight bits]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The revelations outlined of a scientific nature are important because when they eventually become validated in the future, they will help to substantiate the more important parts of the revelation.

Why?

I accept your three-part outline of UB:

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

1. Cosmology
2. History
3. The life and teachings of Jesus

I might be interested in what Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks about Julius Caesar or whether Jesus really said "It is more blessed to give than receive" (attributed to Jesus by Paul as quoted in Acts 20:35), but not because he knows a great deal about astrophysics.

In fact, in the real world, I might be especially interested in his amateur opinions because being the professional scholar that he is, he would very likely present his opinion with the evidence that backed it up. I can't imagine him saying, "Well, I had a visit from Jesus the other day, and ..." More likely he'd say something like "Paul and Jesus were both rabbis, and the Jewish Bible urges concern for the poor and promises blessings, for example, Proverbs 19:17, He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.'..."

But then anybody who talks like that when offering their opinions earns some credibility, not just world-famous scholars. Conversely, anybody can say they had a visit from Jesus the other day, and too many people do say that to take all of them seriously.

Yeah, I know, your guys and gals' visit from Jesus really happened.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

In general, and in my opinion, these are the three main categories the writers of the papers address:

1. Cosmology
2. History
3. The life and teachings of Jesus

The premise of this thread is focused on the first category. Primarily, certain matters the authors of the papers have revealed that are of a scientific nature. Plus how science is coming closer and closer to finding evidence that these things are true.

Except for discussing the revelation that the universe has a center, by and large, I have generally avoided discussing things that diverge from the teachings of Jesus. But since this thread is not focused on that, I will oblige.

It appears that Luis started this thread to address the specifics of how science is validating the revelation. That some of the current findings of science are falling more and more in line with the scientific revelations. That's what Nigel Nunn's and George Park's videos examine. 

Some of those things are:

1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center.

2. That there are two types of gravity, linear gravity, such as between two objects of mass like the earth and moon and absolute gravity, which acts from the center of the universe on every object of mass in existence, independent of linear gravity.

3. That the "ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy" is a "minute sphere" which transmutes "into the circuits and revolutions of the electron". In other words, the ultimaton is the fundamental particle scientists are looking for that make up the neutrons and electrons of atoms.

The revelations outlined of a scientific nature are important because when they eventually become validated in the future, they will help to substantiate the more important parts of the revelation. Then all of it in turn will establish the groundwork for realizing other things. Even things that may not be revealed in the papers. And this taken altogether, will ultimately provide a more accurate "universe frame in which to think" making it easier to make sense of much more; than just words on paper.

1. The shape of the universe is not eliptical. It's the subject of great debate. I'm thinking you have The Universe and The Observable universe confused there. There is no centre. A centre doesn't fit with current geographic models. 

2. You have your gravities confused. Absolute and relative gravity are an example of our solar system and the black Hole at the centre of the galaxy. They aren't different in nature, just strength due to proximity of objects. Movement in space is not attributed to a great gravity force. Dark matter is actually predicted to be the reason the universe is expanding..

Linear gravity is used to measure weak gravity fields illustrated by things like lensing. 

3. “An" electron is not really made up of anything. There is an electron field, which has an equilibrium state that happens to be zero everywhere. Where the actual state of the field differs from zero, we have “an" electron. Science isn't predicting a sub atomic electron.

Edited November 30, 2021 by psyche101

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

In general, and in my opinion, these are the three main categories the writers of the papers address:

1. Cosmology
2. History
3. The life and teachings of Jesus

The premise of this thread is focused on the first category. Primarily, certain matters the authors of the papers have revealed that are of a scientific nature. Plus how science is coming closer and closer to finding evidence that these things are true.

Except for discussing the revelation that the universe has a center, by and large, I have generally avoided discussing things that diverge from the teachings of Jesus. But since this thread is not focused on that, I will oblige.

It appears that Luis started this thread to address the specifics of how science is validating the revelation. That some of the current findings of science are falling more and more in line with the scientific revelations. That's what Nigel Nunn's and George Park's videos examine. 

Some of those things are:

1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center.

2. That there are two types of gravity, linear gravity, such as between two objects of mass like the earth and moon and absolute gravity, which acts from the center of the universe on every object of mass in existence, independent of linear gravity.

3. That the "ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy" is a "minute sphere" which transmutes "into the circuits and revolutions of the electron". In other words, the ultimaton is the fundamental particle scientists are looking for that make up the neutrons and electrons of atoms.

The revelations outlined of a scientific nature are important because when they eventually become validated in the future, they will help to substantiate the more important parts of the revelation. Then all of it in turn will establish the groundwork for realizing other things. Even things that may not be revealed in the papers. And this taken altogether, will ultimately provide a more accurate "universe frame in which to think" making it easier to make sense of much more; than just words on paper.
 

 

 

 

Seeking clarification on “the shape of universe is elliptical,” how do you rectify that nasa suggests that the universe is flat?

 

https://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

[Will Due]

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Seeking clarification on “the shape of universe is elliptical,” how do you rectify that nasa suggests that the universe is flat?

 

https://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

 

Well an ellipse is flat.

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Well an ellipse is flat.

 

 

What?

[Will Due]

 

The orbit of the earth around the sun is elliptical which means its path is on a flat plain. This is what is meant when saying the shape of the universe is elliptical and thusly, flat as NASA suggests.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Will Due

[+Sherapy]

18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well an ellipse is flat.

 

 

You could be correct, I am just seeking clarification for my own understanding. 

“Ellipses vary in shape from very broad and flat to almost circular, depending on how far away the foci are from each other. If the two foci are on the same spot, the ellipse is a circle’ (https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/2-how-ellipse-is-different.html).

 

‘1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center” ( Will due quote).

‘This quote implies to me that you are advancing that elliptical is curved, is this correct? 
 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Nuclear Wessel]

14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You could be correct, I am just seeking clarification for my own understanding. 

“Ellipses vary in shape from very broad and flat to almost circular, depending on how far away the foci are from each other. If the two foci are on the same spot, the ellipse is a circle’ (https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/2-how-ellipse-is-different.html).

 

‘1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center” ( Will due quote).

‘This quote implies to me that you are advancing that elliptical is curved, is this correct? 
 

 

I never really thought about flatness in terms of shapes, but he's correct--it is "flat".

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Will asked for peole to watch the video and then discuss it. 

Actually he didn't, at least not until hours later and after people had to ask for more clarification as to why he just posted a video with no explanation.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

we do not argue with people or opinions which closely align with our own, although no two views are ever identical coming from  individual minds 

Which is the opposite of what you said previously, "one person's perception/understanding will always be at least slightly different  to another's Thus there will always be cause for argument ".  In addition, you never indicated why there's anything wrong with arguments.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't believe that is your true motivation. (and I apologise if I am wrong)  

You don't need to apologize for something that is utterly irrelevant, I don't care at all what you think my true motivation is. 

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You have a strong view on those papers etc You have just said that you are an evolutionist  which will make it very difficult to accept  them, unless you did it on faith.

False, I have no view on these 'papers etc' because I haven't read them and don't know anything about them; again, I'm not an expert on Urantia like Will is.  I don't know if they conflict with evolution or not, I don't think Christianity conflicts with evolution so why would I think Urantia does?

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Anyone with a true interest in such a subject MUST read and think about it for themselves , not come to it via the thoughts, beliefs, or opinions, of another. 

So you really shouldn't listen to anything Will has to say until you have read, and applied your own mind to the material 

There are multiple things wrong with this. First you said before that we should watch the video so we can compare to Will's understanding. There is no reason that I have to watch the video first, this comparison can be done if I don't watch the video until Will has provided his position, the order is not important. That's usually the way it works:  here's my position and here's a video that I find believable that explains/elaborates why I have that position.  As 8 already said, it also has the benefit of allowing me to determine whether looking into it further is even worthwhile for me.

And I always kinda crack up when a purported former teacher says things like the above that undercuts the whole concept of needing teachers at all.  The things I learned in class from my teachers without first reading about it in a book are legion.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

cosmic consciousness

This thread is about Will and Luis's religious beliefs, not yours.

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I never really thought about flatness in terms of shapes, but he's correct--it is "flat".

Originally, to me with his quote it implies that he was advancing the universe is curved, but on clarification he seems to have meant flat. 
 

“1. That the shape of the universe is elliptical. That space is curved and in motion, along with everything in it, around the universe center” (Will Due). 
 

This is why I ask Will questions for clarification, this way we are both clear on his intended meaning. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I never really thought about flatness in terms of shapes, but he's correct--it is "flat".

I'm not so sure about that as I think we are blending 2D and 3D/4D.  I think you are saying an ellipse is flat because it's a 2D shape, but when scientists say the universe is 'flat' they are talking about 3D space not having curvature I believe.  Will kinda shows this as he talks about the elliptical orbit of planets in the solar system like they are on a flat plane, but then says that is what he's talking about with the universe.  I'm not following that point, the galaxies in the universe are not on any flat plane that is analogous to the orbits of our solar system.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

29 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

The orbit of the earth around the sun is elliptical which means its path is on a flat plain. This is what is meant when saying the shape of the universe is elliptical and thusly, flat as NASA suggests.

 

 

 

I can understand why you might assume the universe is flat because the orbital path of the earth in relation to the sun is elliptical, but the universe is more like an ellipsoid.

Think the shape of an inflated whoopee cushion. From one perspective it can seem flat, but when thought of in three dimensions it certainly is not.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not so sure about that as I think we are blending 2D and 3D/4D.  I think you are saying an ellipse is flat because it's a 2D shape, but when scientists say the universe is 'flat' they are talking about 3D space not having curvature I believe.  Will kinda shows this as he talks about the elliptical orbit of planets in the solar system like they are on a flat plane, but then says that is what he's talking about with the universe.  I'm not following that point, the galaxies in the universe are not on any flat plane that is analogous to the orbits of our solar system.

Just saw that after I made a post comparing it to the shape of a whoopee cushion lol.

You're right. Slow this morning...

Edited November 30, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Desertrat56]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:32 PM, Luis Marco said:

Hey, i share with you all my most recent answer to the queries about The Urantia Papers or The Urantia Book, on Quora:

• https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-know-about-The-Urantia-Book/answer/Luis-Marco-10

This is not spamming nor advertising, since URANTIA is already in the public domain, and free to read and download online...

So i am open here to debate with anyone who wants to 'debunk' this divine revelation, URANTIA, which objectively and for me it's impossible, wanna try?, here i am!, let's start this debate---if you want.

i also add these, the very first paragraphs of URANTIA:

So, you are spreading the Urantia word, why?   I already mentioned one on this forum you could talk to about that book.   I have read some of it and find it too convoluted.   Instead of posting the whole book, tell us what attracts you to it, why you think it is a worthwhile endeavor to read it.

[Will Due]

15 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not so sure about that as I think we are blending 2D and 3D/4D.  I think you are saying an ellipse is flat because it's a 2D shape, but when scientists say the universe is 'flat' they are talking about 3D space not having curvature I believe.  Will kinda shows this as he talks about the elliptical orbit of planets in the solar system like they are on a flat plane, but then says that is what he's talking about with the universe.  I'm not following that point, the galaxies in the universe are not on any flat plane that is analogous to the orbits of our solar system.

 

14 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I can understand why you might assume the universe is flat because the orbital path of the earth in relation to the sun is elliptical, but the universe is more like an ellipsoid.

Think the shape of an inflated whoopee cushion. From one perspective it can seem flat, but when thought of in three dimensions it certainly is not.

 

I think what NASA is suggesting about the universe being flat is that it is flat, like it's observable when viewing a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way in cross-section. Yes it's ellipsoid like a pillow but a very thin one. But reading more about how the papers describe the shape of the universe, it's not quite as simple as that. There are more things to it than the universe just being flat.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Will Due

[+Desertrat56]

On 11/18/2021 at 6:44 AM, Halbert said:

I just joined this forum and have provided some background information in my profile. It can fairly be said that helping people study The Urantia Book with both depth and efficiency is my main purpose in life. No doubt, you will find that my website--UBannotated.com--provides deep and efficient Urantia Bok study better than anything else out there. Don't mean to brag, but if you don't want to waste time and you have some interest in The Urantia Book, check it out. Then, let me now what you think, if you're so moved. Of particular note is the UBtheNEWS section, which features reports on how new discoveries and scientific advances increasingly support the account of history found in The Urantia Book. Folks in this forum might especially enjoy the Gobekli Tepe Report.

Now there are three?   Did @Will Due ask you all to join this forum?   Are you recruiting or do you actually want to discuss?

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

I think what NASA is suggesting about the universe being flat is that it is flat like it's observable when viewing a spiral galaxy, like the Milky Way, in cross-section. Yes it's ellipsoid like a pillow but a very thin one. But reading more about how the papers describe the shape of the universe, it's not quite as simple as that. There are more things to it than the universe just being flat.

Agreed, scientifically the alternatives to the universe being flat is that it is negatively curved (hyperbolic) or positively curved (spherical).  Curved space I can semi-grasp in my mind in certain situations but it is not intuitive, I kinda understand how a bright object that is directly behind a star or object with strong gravitation can appear (I think) from our perspective to be located to the side of it because of light travelling 'in a straight line' through curved space on its journey to my eyeball.  That slight understanding for me kinda flies out the window though when we start talking about the shape of the universe as a whole which I don't really have much of a clue about and is difficult for me to conceptualize.

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

The planets on the Zodiacal plane actually go above and below it a bit each on their own. Some objects aren't on it in the solar system. I guess if you had a ball on a string and swung it around it would come out straight, taunt and flat because of centrifigul force and other properties.

Another way of seeing the universe as flat is the Flatland analogy. I read about this first in a book about string theory. The analogy in the book was an ant lived on a curvy plane of existance. To the ant's perspective everything was flat because it could walk up walls, even though everything was curvy. This is an anomoly of perceiving 2 dimensions in a 3 dimensional realm. 

I couldn't find a video for the ant analogy, but I found another video for Flatland.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by The_Phantom_Stranger

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Actually he didn't, at least not until hours later and after people had to ask for more clarification as to why he just posted a video with no explanation.

Which is the opposite of what you said previously, "one person's perception/understanding will always be at least slightly different  to another's Thus there will always be cause for argument ".  In addition, you never indicated why there's anything wrong with arguments.

You don't need to apologize for something that is utterly irrelevant, I don't care at all what you think my true motivation is. 

False, I have no view on these 'papers etc' because I haven't read them and don't know anything about them; again, I'm not an expert on Urantia like Will is.  I don't know if they conflict with evolution or not, I don't think Christianity conflicts with evolution so why would I think Urantia does?

There are multiple things wrong with this. First you said before that we should watch the video so we can compare to Will's understanding. There is no reason that I have to watch the video first, this comparison can be done if I don't watch the video until Will has provided his position, the order is not important. That's usually the way it works:  here's my position and here's a video that I find believable that explains/elaborates why I have that position.  As 8 already said, it also has the benefit of allowing me to determine whether looking into it further is even worthwhile for me.

And I always kinda crack up when a purported former teacher says things like the above that undercuts the whole concept of needing teachers at all.  The things I learned in class from my teachers without first reading about it in a book are legion.

This thread is about Will and Luis's religious beliefs, not yours.

Indeed, I went back through the thread and you are correct Will didn’t include any instructions to watch the video with that post. In fact, Will typically doesn’t include his reasons or thoughts on the multiple quotes he posts about the UB.

 

I ask a lot for clarification or his thoughts. Quite frankly, I find his thoughts and clarifications interesting.  
 

He also responds politely and graciously to questions and inquiries though if anyone asks. There are no issues with Will. He seems to be a decent guy who loves the UB.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Sherapy