Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Galapagos]

I think this quotation from the article Holy Wars by astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson is particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand:

 

The argument is simple. I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. Indeed, I can make an even stronger statement. Whenever people have used religious documents to make accurate predictions about the physical world they have been famously wrong. By a prediction, I mean a precise statement about the untested behavior of objects or phenomena in the natural world that gets logged before the event takes place. When your model predicts something only after it has happened, then you have instead made a "postdiction." Postdictions are the backbone of most creation myths and, of course, of the "Just So" stories of Rudyard Kipling, where explanations of everyday phenomena explain what is already known. In the business of science, however, a hundred postdictions are barely worth a single successful prediction.

 

And another quote, by the late and great Carl Sagan:

 

Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?

 

And one last bit of supplemental reading for those following the thread:

Subjective validation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Michaelangelica]

Has anyone on this thread read "Good Omens" by Terry Prattchet and Neil Gamen?

Sounds remarkably close to their plot line

[modest]

This is why I'm asking if Urantia distinguishes between Pangea and Rodina. Can you quote that?

 

From your reply, I'm guessing the answer is no. All Urantia did was echo twenty year old science. Is this the great example that Moontanman hasn’t:

 

dealt with in the least detail.

?

 

What’s to deal with? Honestly, are we talking about how great Wegener was for discovering all this or how great Urantia is for agreeing with it? :rolleyes:

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

Another confusing aspect of this statement is that in astronomy, the term revolution refers to a complete orbit while rotation refers to spinning on an axis. The terminology in the UP statement above is misapplied, but it is not difficult to understand what is being conveyed.

 

Rather than belabor the point, I think we can agree that this is an imperfection. And as you said, it isn't difficult to understand what is being conveyed. The UB is not perfect, and doesn't claim to be.

[Caligastia]

Yes, it claims it is absolute truth

 

Would you mind showing me the passage in the UB that claims it is absolute truth?

 

that's what a revelation is when speaking theologically. The mountain I'm making is from a lot of these 'molehills', and it is a mountain of evidence of the falsity of the Urantia's claims.

 

Um, no...even your link doesn't support the claim of absolute truth.

[Caligastia]

Very well said Reason. I'd just like to add that from the vantage point of Earth, it appears (to someone not trained in basic Astronomy) that the moon does not rotate at all. This is very convincing evidence that it was humans, and not "all knowing celestial beings", that wrote the UB. Omniscient beings would never make such an error.

 

The earth's gravity keeps one side of the moon facing the earth at all times. If this was not the case, the moon would be exhibiting a motion that resisted the earth's gravitational pull. To me, it makes more sense to consider the axial state of submission to the earth's gravity as being more "stationary" than the alternative.

[Caligastia]

The book is dissembled to fit modern science by claiming it means something other than it says.

 

Well, you just took quote out of the context of the paragraph...now who's dissembling?

 

 

Science is dissembled to fit the book claiming geology, radioactive decay rates, the big bang, are all wrong.

 

If the faithful are claiming the book made accurate predictions about science then it's ironic how much modern science is ignored in an effort to make this book seem divine.

 

~modest

 

...because unlike all other science before it, current science knows all and will never change!

[Caligastia]

Here's a prediction of sorts that I've found particularly fascinating lately. Modern sonar readings have confirmed the UB's description of the submerged peninsula of the original garden of Eden:

Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

[freeztar]

The earth's gravity keeps one side of the moon facing the earth at all times. If this was not the case, the moon would be exhibiting a motion that resisted the earth's gravitational pull. To me, it makes more sense to consider the axial state of submission to the earth's gravity as being more "stationary" than the alternative.

 

It's not stationary though, no matter how much sense it makes to you.

"Axial State of Submission" would make a good song title...

[Majeston]

An interesting statistical study was done by Phil Calabrese at the following location.....

Untitled Document

 

with the statistical result.....

 

So given human authorship of the Urantia Book, the combined probability of all of these happening by chance (or by generally following the contemporary scientific beliefs) is

 

 

 

≤ (1/50)(1/40)(1/50)(1/100)(1/100)(1/5)(1/5)(1/4)

 

≤ 1/100,000,000,000 = less than 1 chance in 100 billion,

 

Which truths are you putting in your column and which ones are not part of the prophesy.

 

Moontanman,

It doesn't appear as though you have read the Calabrese paper. The complete paper can be found at Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web "The coming scientific validation"

personally, I think Phil was being overly generous with less than 1 chance in 100 billion,

 

actually, from the above responses it's apparent that no-one has yet seriously considered the research already given. No one has seriously explored the citations from Kary Mullis. Perhaps someone might, so, a more in depth study done on the genetics. Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

 

 

If the Urantia papers are a hoax, it is the best hoax this planet has ever seen.

 

 

Freeztar, nice song title. :rolleyes:

[modest]

..leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon...

 

The book is dissembled to fit modern science by claiming it means something other than it says.

Well, you just took quote out of the context of the paragraph...now who's dissembling?

 

I'm betting you don't get how you just proved my point.

 

...because unlike all other science before it, current science knows all and will never change!

 

Well, yes, changing modern science would be a way to get science and Urantia to agree. That would be one solution. I wonder if we could get the book to change... What's the rule on editing something of divine inspiration. Is it like the constitution, perfect put amendable?

 

That would be nice :rolleyes:

 

-modest

[modest]

actually, from the above responses it's apparent that no-one has yet seriously considered the research already given. No one has seriously explored the citations from Kary Mullis. Perhaps someone might, so, a more in depth study done on the genetics.

 

Here's the problem. I could name 50 current scientific theories and facts and in 60 years maybe 49 of them would be right. Now what would be the chances of that as calculated in the link above...

 

It would be 1/2^49... So if I can accomplish this task then I beat the odds of one in a trillion and change. But, the problem:

 

This assumes I'd have a 50% chance at guessing the outcome of any theory. That's just not right. Most theories that make sense today are going to keep making sense - sure some things we will get wrong, but the odds are not as they are portrayed above. Not by a "long-shot".

 

~modest

[Caligastia]

I'm betting you don't get how you just proved my point.

 

Why don't you explain it to poor, stupid me?:rolleyes:

 

No doubt you'll say that I'm "dissembling" by pointing out the fact of your out-of-context quote.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

It doesn't appear as though you have read the Calabrese paper. The complete paper can be found at Data Synthesis :: 2006 Web "The coming scientific validation"

personally, I think Phil was being overly generous with less than 1 chance in 100 billion,

 

actually, from the above responses it's apparent that no-one has yet seriously considered the research already given. No one has seriously explored the citations from Kary Mullis. Perhaps someone might, so, a more in depth study done on the genetics. Urantia News - Verifying Science and History in The Urantia Book

 

 

If the Urantia papers are a hoax, it is the best hoax this planet has ever seen.

 

 

Freeztar, nice song title. :rolleyes:

 

I tried to down load this paper but my computer wouldn't let me do it, something about malicious software. If the title is any clue, "the coming verification" it is just more book of urantia verifying the book of urantia. I'll try again as soon I get this problem sorted out.

[Caligastia]

Here's the problem. I could name 50 current scientific theories and facts and in 60 years maybe 49 of them would be right.

 

 

For the analogy to be correct, you would have to name scientific theories that currently are not accepted. I think you'd find your score would be far lower than 49 out of 50.

[modest]

Why don't you explain it to poor, stupid me?:rolleyes:

 

Although there are some clever and down right funny things I could say right now, I'll just let them go. All I'm saying is: I think it's a bit odd we have to get out our compound sentence diagram to discover the true meaning of something my 7 year old nephew could understand. If there isn't motive or bias behind that then I'm the one...

 

Yeah, I'll let that go.

 

~modest (censoring himself)

[Moontanman]

For the analogy to be correct, you would have to name scientific theories that currently are not accepted. I think you'd find your score would be far lower than 49 out of 50.

 

This assumes that the Book Of Urantia has predicted scientific theories correctly, so far I have seen absolutely no evidence of this. So far the Book of Urantia has scored zero in this category. What are the odds of being completely wrong all the time? 100% ?