Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

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


c.s.lewis

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

1. You are being dogmatic in science, you are demonstrating scientific dogmatism, like other people here,

It's called actual science, not made up science. 

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

for we have already partially discovered the elliptical shape of the universe, as Will Due showed in this topic elsewhere, or perhaps we haven't yet, but you are acting as if our science has all the answers, when our science is actually changing and progressing at all times, and so on.

I'll give you the tip. No we haven't, and nothing is predicting that outcome. Will saw a giant arc in the sky reported and thought it indicates a distant orbit. Will clearly does not dabble in astronomy. His arc is only at a third of the distance we can see, so if it was determining a centre, we would see that too.

We aren't and it isn't. 

The universe is not eliptical and does not have a centre, and growing information supports that 

The UB is flat out wrong there.

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

2. Absolute and local gravity, as given in the URANTIA cosmology, have already been proven as facts, as shown in the vid i shared of George Park here in this topic; nowhere in URANTIA do we have 'relative gravity', eh, but perhaps we could use that term for URANTIA's local gravity, or maybe we can't.

No we can't because relative gravity is actually science. Absolute gravity is just a very poor model by someone who doesn't really understand it. Kepler explained what Parks attempts to in the 17th century much clearer and better.

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

3. Again dogmatism:

You're kidding me by now right?

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

when we discover the ultimaton as revealed in URANTIA, which makes up the electron according to it, you will have to revise your science standards; and why is this very likely?: because of URANTIA's record history of its other advanced and predictive science, ahead of the science of its publication time...

No, we won't be re-writing basics is atomic structure.

Seriously. What sort of an answer is that? Science will have to be rewritten to accommodate the UB? Thats extremely silly Luis. 

Electrons aren't built up particles, they are an elementary. They act as particles and waves so no. Science won't be rewritten in that respect and the above doesn't show the UB as having a good track record in this regard.

No predictive sciences have come to fruition that I have seen.

22 hours ago, Luis Marco said:

U-M should ban you for 'insulting' me, but since 'cabron' is also said among friends here in mexico and other places, we can see how ignorant you are, so i forgive you. :sk

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2021 at 8:11 AM, Luis Marco said:

whereas we have shared proofs of factual physical science confirming the advanced science of URANTIA...

Hi Luis

If that is the case why not give a link to the peer reviewed scientific papers that you are claiming are proofs?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2021 at 9:46 PM, Will Due said:

What is the biggest difference between what Jesus emphasizes in the Bible and what Jesus emphasizes in Urantia? Does Urantia's Jesus teach all the same things as the biblical one?

The emphasis in the Bible isn't on what Jesus emphasized at all. Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name. Albeit in a largely altered state.

This sounds rediculous. Does everybody in Urantia believe this. A book that is less than a hundred years old claims to be closer to Jesus than the actual Gospels of Jesus Christ. This is like the definition of a Messianic complex. Jesus warns us in the Gospel to beware of these new religions claiming to be Christ, that they might lead many astray.

Matthew 7

Quote

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 3:20 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Your first line makes no sense and again you answer your own questions.  I don't insist on evidence for every claim in the cases where I already possess the evidence I need, yes, of course, like everyone. 

One of the reasons I responded on this is because it seems to be a notion of yours that is maybe longest lived and will not die (you've been likening angels to dogs/wives for years now), but it's still not a very intelligent or meaningful argument.  You usually follow the same structure: 'you can't prove I had peanut paste for breakfast', and then argue that because of this that it means, well something, I'm not clear what, concerning 'I'm in touch with the cosmic consciousness'.  You overlook that the first has two relevant claims:  peanut paste exists, and that you had it for breakfast.  I'm not sure what peanut paste actually is, I assume it's like peanut butter in the states, but I assume I can prove it exists.  You don't want to compare that part though, you instead want to compare not being able to prove that you had it for breakfast to the cc, and since I don't have evidence to prove your breakfast choice, then you don't seem to understand why the cc is questioned and your breakfast is not.  'Proving' of course is a standard you randomly throw in to obfuscate, no one I know navigates their lives by proving things constantly.  All good arguments and theories should account for all the relevant facts, and you consistently fail to account for the fact that there is no reason to question if you had peanut paste for breakfast in a relative sense to a cc, you are claiming to do something that lots of people do and that involves commonplace fully-evidenced things.  Not being able to prove something does not mean that there is cause to question something.  That doesn't apply to the cc.  You are still comparing, "I did this fully evidenced thing that millions of people do at this un-evidenced time" with "I did this totally un-evidenced thing at this un-evidenced time"; you can layer on as many other un-evidenced/unprovable clauses as you want to your comparison here but it doesn't get you around or address that core difference in the two 'things'.  

So yea, it really is a problem of evidence, that's what's being requested, that's what you don't have for the cc. Relative to that I do have a slight amount of evidence for what you had for breakfast, since that at least exists.

At best you know exactly what it is like to imagine things, congrats on being very ordinary.

In a nutshell you've almost got it 

You know peanut paste exists but you can not know i ate it for breakfast today and i cant prove it to you Yet you  accept that statement/claim  on faith because its possible to you 

you have no evidences of what i ate but you will accept  my word for it  Ie it is not about the evidences but about what you are ready to believe 

And yes this applies to everything. I have the same evidences for my dog's existence as i do for god's (the comic consciousness)  but i cant prove the existence of either to you IF you doubt me.  You know dogs exist so you accept that I have one but you don't believe gods exist you cant accept that I have one of them :) 

I was raised, I guess, to neither believe nor disbelieve in anything, but to seek knowledge  about everything. I test everything, including the solidity and reality of my surroundings,  and what I see.

I've NEVER believed in gods,  and still don't .

I went from polite sceptical disbelief when people talked about gods,  to knowing they existed (  which left no room for either belief or disbelief ) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You know peanut paste exists but you can not know i ate it for breakfast today and i cant prove it to you Yet you  accept that statement/claim  on faith because its possible to you 

Acceptance is a judgment of plausibility, not an assertion of certainty. It often refers to a level of confidence, but in this case refers to one-sided simple admissibility: everything in your claim is possible and even routine (I, too, had some "peanut paste" as part of my breakfast this morning). Unlike so many of your more ambitious claims, you plausibly do know what you had for breakfast. (Compare, for instance, that you plainly don't know how an electrical capacitor-condenser behaves in a radio receiver.)

Given further that nothing is at stake for me in what you had for breakfast, and that I have no foundation for any other account of your breakfast, you're golden.

Not because I am certain, not even because I am confident, but rather because I don't care enough to inquire beyond the undisputed surface.

Or. to tidy all of that up into a few words: peanut paste definitely exists.

58 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

you have no evidences of what i ate but you will accept  my word for it 

Or, "Mr Walker had peanut paste for breakfast" is the best explanation of all the available evidence. That, too, is a possible meaning of acceptance, and one which connotes neither certainty nor confidence, but rather a drought of relevant evidence.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

the comic consciousness

Now that I can believe in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

but you can not know i ate it for breakfast today and i cant prove it to you

Given what we know about the digestive system and considering the technology we have we could very well know that you had peanut butter for breakfast this morning. That is absurd. As eight bits pointed out though we don’t care enough. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The_Phantom_Stranger said:
On 12/14/2021 at 9:46 PM, Will Due said:

The emphasis in the Bible isn't on what Jesus emphasized at all. Instead it emphasizes what Jesus' followers chose to do in initiating a new religion based on a lot of mistaken ideas about him, whereas the entirety of the papers emphasizes who he is, what his teachings are, what happened during his life, and so on, before it became lodged into the religion that now bares his name. Albeit in a largely altered state.

This sounds rediculous. Does everybody in Urantia believe this. A book that is less than a hundred years old claims to be closer to Jesus than the actual Gospels of Jesus Christ. This is like the definition of a Messianic complex. Jesus warns us in the Gospel to beware of these new religions claiming to be Christ, that they might lead many astray.

He does have a point, though I agree, the Urantia has no better understanding of what Jesus emphasized, much less which Jesus the Romans actually used for their fairy tales that worked so well to keep their empire going (think about it, what calendar do we use all over the world for business?,  what religion has missionaries all over the  world "saving" people?)  The Holy Roman Empire is alive and well and you have bought it hook line and sinker.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

In a nutshell you've almost got it 

In a nutshell, you unfortunately don't.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You know peanut paste exists but you can not know i ate it for breakfast today and i cant prove it to you Yet you  accept that statement/claim  on faith because its possible to you 

you have no evidences of what i ate but you will accept  my word for it  Ie it is not about the evidences but about what you are ready to believe 

And yes this applies to everything. I have the same evidences for my dog's existence as i do for god's (the comic consciousness)  but i cant prove the existence of either to you IF you doubt me.  You know dogs exist so you accept that I have one but you don't believe gods exist you cant accept that I have one of them :) 

All of the above is incorrect, as 8 alluded to you are confusing 'accepted' with 'not bothering to question'.  It's not that you say nothing that doesn't sound reasonable to me about yourself, but I don't think I'd be willing to put a wager down that almost any specific thing you've claimed is absolutely true (except you are a dude, that shows). So to that extent no I don't 'accept' any of your claims, which invalidates the above argument which is based on that.  As usual you try to frame this as being about 'belief', 'faith', and implying this is all a matter of pre-existing bias ('ready to believe') on people who disagree with you.  What you won't discuss is the evidence - can't discuss what doesn't exist. 

As I've said previously you are wrong above, I do have evidences of what you ate, I know there are things that are edible and things that are inedible, and the chances that you had peanut butter is much greater than you had tenderloin of Sasquatch, and that is because of the evidence.  There is no inconsistency in my approach here, my degree of belief is based on the evidence; it's not a good argument of yours that because I don't question peanut butter at breakfast there is then some implication of inconsistency when I question the totally un-evidenced, woo-ey cc. This is 'duh' level.

An open-minded person may approach your claims for the 'comic' consciousness (that's too good of a typo to just ignore and not proliferate) and say, 'I will set aside everything we know about psychology and physics temporarily in evaluating your claim.  So what evidence do you then have for the cc?".  And as quickly as it starts, it ends, you have no evidence, just your testimonials.  That is also why, 'I have the same evidences for my dog as I do for my god' is also false; one you can provide abundant evidence for and one you can't, thus the evidence you possess is not 'the same'.  That's been said a million times to you of course, maybe we'll get a Xmas miracle and this time you'll account for it.  What you mean to say is, "I'm as convinced of the cc as I am of dogs"; totally different claim.

What you avoid is the simple framing we use for most everything, 'what is the case for the cc?', because that is a very quick conversation and unfortunately for you is separated from questions of people's beliefs and biases, doubts, etc.  And you simply can't seem to control yourself, you always have to randomly and inaccurately try to slip in the word 'prove', which is a standard that no one but you is talking about. 

Come on man, I could have typed your response from memory, your framing of the argument is still flawed and doesn't address and incorporate the counter-arguments.  Again, this is all obvious stuff, and as @eight bitsso aptly put it and also applies to me:  "Or. to tidy all of that up into a few words: peanut paste definitely exists."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I've NEVER believed in gods,  and still don't .

I went from polite sceptical disbelief when people talked about gods,  to knowing they existed (  which left no room for either belief or disbelief )

Hi Walker

Eight Bits, Liquid Gardens and Nuke have already addressed the dining aspect of your post so I will not add to that as it has been made sufficiently clear that it is a non-point for discussion. As for your god construct you claim your alien is a god that you can physically experience but unable to present for a multitude of excuses and ask others to believe even if you deny that you are asking people to believe. You have always expressed that through your life you had a god construct(belief) starting at 3 years old with the cosmic consciousness that you claim both you and your alien are connected to and part of.

You have in past argued that a child does not have a concept of self until 5 years old but credit yourself as being special to exempt yourself from the norm which has not yet been shown to be valid.

you use the disclaimer that you do not believe because you know but want to subject others to believe without evidence, the evidence that you say exists in the presence of your alien that has a physical form and cannot produce that alien for any number of reasons and circle back to others having to believe you as evidence that it exists.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny, but I just went back nine months in the forums, looking for a particular post of mine for a friend. In multiple threads, I encountered the same cast of characters having the same "discussion" with the same individual, more-or-less saying exactly the same thing as they are today. This just never gets old for you guys, does it? Now don't get mad, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It just struck me that there's no new ground; it's the same well-trodden path, over and over again. Nothing is accomplished; it's almost a ritual. Perhaps, someday, we'll all tire of listening to echoes.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's funny, but I just went back nine months in the forums, looking for a particular post of mine for a friend. In multiple threads, I encountered the same cast of characters having the same "discussion" with the same individual, more-or-less saying exactly the same thing as they are today. This just never gets old for you guys, does it? Now don't get mad, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It just struck me that there's no new ground; it's the same well-trodden path, over and over again. Nothing is accomplished; it's almost a ritual. Perhaps, someday, we'll all tire of listening to echoes.

So you've seen what I've seen. How it all repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So you've seen what I've seen. How it all repeats.

Incessantly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Incessantly.

It gets a tad boring. Not just in this section. A few others as well. I get caught up in it, then afterwards ask myself why I bothered. 

Edited by XenoFish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It gets a tad boring. Not just in this section. A few others as well. I get caught up in it, then afterwards ask myself why I bothered. 

That makes two of us.:hmm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That makes two of us.:hmm:

I reread the entire “Forgiveness” thread, didn’t find “the post,” but found a lot of great posts. It was so fun to revisit. :wub:
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

This just never gets old for you guys, does it?

Please, proceed, entertain me instead!  I think you may be making assumptions about how much anyone is actually invested in this; I type a lot for work, it only took a few minutes to type the above so not much sweat involved. 

What's even more 'meta' is how you and Xeno are also sucked in.  After all 'this is repetitive' and 'this is boring', et al, have also been repeated here by you guys, also almost verbatim, many times concerning these convos.  I think that's fine, but you are also indulging in the same boring repetition everyone else is, you're just caught a little further out in the same whirlpool. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Please, proceed, entertain me instead!  I think you may be making assumptions about how much anyone is actually invested in this; I type a lot for work, it only took a few minutes to type the above so not much sweat involved. 

What's even more 'meta' is how you and Xeno are also sucked in.  After all 'this is repetitive' and 'this is boring', et al, have also been repeated here by you guys, also almost verbatim, many times concerning these convos.  I think that's fine, but you are also indulging in the same boring repetition everyone else is, you're just caught a little further out in the same whirlpool. 

In rereading, I was struck by the growth of posters. For me, I have done some major personal work. It is like reading a journal. So fun and enlightening. 
 

Also, growth is a process it takes what it takes.:wub:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's funny, but I just went back nine months in the forums, looking for a particular post of mine for a friend. In multiple threads, I encountered the same cast of characters having the same "discussion" with the same individual, more-or-less saying exactly the same thing as they are today. This just never gets old for you guys, does it? Now don't get mad, I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It just struck me that there's no new ground; it's the same well-trodden path, over and over again. Nothing is accomplished; it's almost a ritual. Perhaps, someday, we'll all tire of listening to echoes.

I think our personality’s are fairly static too. :P Mindfulness is new, so is delving deeper into Buddhism, we have new posters who bring a fresh perspective too.  Dee and Manwon come to mind. :wub:
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's even more 'meta' is how you and Xeno are also sucked in.  After all 'this is repetitive' and 'this is boring', et al, have also been repeated here by you guys, also almost verbatim, many times concerning these convos.  I think that's fine, but you are also indulging in the same boring repetition everyone else is, you're just caught a little further out in the same whirlpool. 

I don't think either of us denied not being caught up in or participating in these threads. Even when it's a different topic they all seem to lead in the same or similar direction. Which normally causes them to get locked or just abandoned. What annoy's me the most is when a thread is started, questions asked, then answers are instantly rejected. Then again, how many different takes can we really have on the same type of subject. Many of which come down to just god is/isn't real debates or Mr. McSuperpower hijacks them. 

I can't say all the threads have been a repeat, we've had quite a few good and thoughtful ones. I think it really comes down to the topic/s. I mean. How long have we been doing this song and dance?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think our personality’s are fairly static too.

I'm not exactly sure. I went from being a believer with questions, to anti-belief (anti-theistic), atheist, to agnostic over the course of my time here. I mean we do change if we're willing to change. I guess it comes down to fluid vs fixed. I suppose the prime issue is with those of a fixed mindset don't want to discuss with the fluid one's. This section is probably just a comfort zone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Please, proceed, entertain me instead!  I think you may be making assumptions about how much anyone is actually invested in this; I type a lot for work, it only took a few minutes to type the above so not much sweat involved. 

What's even more 'meta' is how you and Xeno are also sucked in.  After all 'this is repetitive' and 'this is boring', et al, have also been repeated here by you guys, also almost verbatim, many times concerning these convos.  I think that's fine, but you are also indulging in the same boring repetition everyone else is, you're just caught a little further out in the same whirlpool. 

I didn't deny it, either. I'm here because the people I consider friends are here, not necessarily for this kind of content we perpetually generate. I agree I'm as big a dumbass as everyone else who continues doing it.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. How many times has the UB been brought up in threads? Too much to count. I think there really is only so much that can be said about it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

I didn't deny it, either. I'm here because the people I consider friends are here, not necessarily for this kind of content we perpetually generate. I agree I'm as big a dumbass as everyone else who continues doing it.

I'd say same here, I just don't think there's much 'dumbass' about it.  As long as it's not getting in the way of real conversations it doesn't bug me.  That certainly does happen but on this particular thread our two main Urantia believers haven't really tried to engage much, and that's way before it was Walkerized.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Let's be honest. How many times has the UB been brought up in threads? Too much to count. I think there really is only so much that can be said about it. 

Hi Xeno

I think the biggest problem with discussing the UB with believers is that they do not understand the depth and breadth of what they are getting into with regard to critical review. There are many worthwhile points of discussion for a person if they are well founded in several aspects of life outside of the UB like science and are able to discuss it from that position as it is a strong influence in the UB teachings whether they concepts are real or not the affect of the use of inference in it is. I don't claim to be as informed on science as I know others here are stronger in that area but I am capable of researching points worth discussing and that is why I participate, for my own education.

My interest is why someone believes and do not care that they do believe as that is their choice and does not infer that I think they are bad or wrong as my interest is in their ability to illustrate and discuss points of a construct. I know that it can be difficult as it can seem like they are under attack by being questioned about the material.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked
  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.