Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:26 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
Though the big bang is not mentioned in the Urantia Book, I believe that it is compatible, even helpful, to the message of the Urantia Book as a revelation. With big bang cosmology, scientists have mathematically proved that the universe had a biginning, thus requiring a first cause, the Universal Father.

Furthermore, the Urantia Book teaches that the very presence of God is located at the geographical center of infinity, and that the universe was patterned after Paradise. What if the big bang was the universe's expansion from the centerpoint of Paradise? Science has shown that the universe had a beginning, yet they are not able to tell us what caused the big bang or what existed before it happened.

Quote:
Background

The Big Bang itself is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations.[2] But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").[3][4][5] In addition, many theologians and physicists have viewed the Big Bang as implicating theism;[6][7] a popular philosophical argument for the existence of God known as the Kalām cosmological argument rests in the concepts of the Big Bang.[8][9] In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory,[10] who rejected the implication that the universe had a beginning.[11][12]
Christianity

Further information: Bible and science and Catholic Church and science
Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951, opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation.[13][14] Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... ang_theory

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 951
hmm i think the cosmology in the papers would say there's some validity (and no lack of errors) in steady state, cyclical and big band theories depending on which aspect of the Universe of universes is analyzed and i reckon it was the scientific mindset and our inability to grasp eternity and a causeless effect that led to popular adoption of the bb theory over steady state.

dunno what i'm trying to say lol...BB theory does give the universe an end and a beginning and the cyclical universes of time and space do have beginnings and ends but I think any other theory would never do away with our mortal nature that wants to ask first cause type questions like "where was god before anything existed and which came first the chicken or the egg?" lol...if that makes sense.

if i'm not mistaken the bb science if pressed kinda cops out on really assigning a First Cause and only goes back to some point like one trillionth of a second after It...the cosmological question remains though. :-)

gotta admit though that i'm not a fan of bb and i think current bb theory is junk science hanging by a thread of main$tream groupthink and propped up by a number of other weak theories and will crash hard at some time....eh but even a broken clock is right twice a day ;-)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Hi Yoder. The issue of so called big bang theories has been discussed many times on Truthbook. E.g. here:

The universe is slowing.
Creation Question
Science catching up with the urantia book yet again
Proving the existence of God
Milky Way

I think TUB does not support big bang theories. Instead, the book states that space alternately contracts and expands in a 2 billion year cycle called space respiration:
Quote:
11:6.1 We do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration; we merely observe that all space alternately contracts and expands. This respiration affects both the horizontal extension of pervaded space and the vertical extensions of unpervaded space which exist in the vast space reservoirs above and below Paradise. In attempting to imagine the volume outlines of these space reservoirs, you might think of an hourglass.

11:6.4 The cycles of space respiration extend in each phase for a little more than one billion Urantia years. During one phase the universes expand; during the next they contract. Pervaded space is now approaching the mid-point of the expanding phase, while unpervaded space nears the mid-point of the contracting phase, and we are informed that the outermost limits of both space extensions are, theoretically, now approximately equidistant from Paradise. The unpervaded-space reservoirs now extend vertically above upper Paradise and below nether Paradise just as far as the pervaded space of the universe extends horizontally outward from peripheral Paradise to and even beyond the fourth outer space level.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
The Urantia Book states that it's not divinely inspired in its cosmology and that it would need to be amended at a future date, as to not provide "unearned knowledge." Of all cosmological models, the big bang explains the most lines of evidence and is the most supported by the math. Of all cosmological models, big bang theory lends the most support to there being an uncaused first cause.

There have been many books and articles written showing how big bang cosmology supports belief in a Creator God. Here is an example:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation ... -cosmology

Since the big bang tells us that the universe has expanded since its inception, that leaves open the question from where did it expand? I would say, based on the Urantia Book, that it was from the geographical center of infinity at Paradise.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Last edited by Yoder777 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:12 pm +0000, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
As long as a big bang theory is compatible with TUB’s space respiration it’s okay with me. :) But how would you reconcile a singular big bang that is supposed to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago, with a 2 billion year cycle of space respiration?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
Bart wrote:
As long as a big bang theory is compatible with TUB’s space respiration it’s okay with me. :) But how would you reconcile a singular big bang that is supposed to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago, with a 2 billion year cycle of space respiration?


I would go with whatever cosmological theory is supported by the most lines of evidence, has the math to back it up, and necessitates an uncaused first cause and a universal center from which everything expanded.

Provided that the Urantia Book states that it's not inspired in its cosmology and that it would need to be amended at a future date, the big bang should not be rejected out of hand, even if it doesn't sit well with our interpretation of a sacred text.

http://www.truthbook.com/urantia_book_c ... riefly.cfm

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Yoder777 wrote:
I would go with whatever cosmological theory is supported by the most lines of evidence, has the math to back it up, and necessitates an uncaused first cause and a universal center from which everything expanded.
Brother Yoder, the math doesn’t 'backup' any big bang theory. The math merely predicts a big bang occurred 13.7 bya. Clearly, according to The Urantia Book, the math is wrong..
Yoder777 wrote:
Provided that the Urantia Book states that it's not inspired in its cosmology and that it would need to be amended at a future date, the big bang should not be rejected out of hand, even if it doesn't sit well with our interpretation of a sacred text.
Well, it doesn’t seem to me that the notion of a 2 billion year cycle of space respiration will be outdated very soon.. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
When the big bang was first proposed, the scientific community protested the theory for its theological implications. When it was shown to the best explanation for the available evidence, it was accepted. Stephen Hawking later proved the big bang, and since then has attempted to provide alternative explanations that would not require a first cause.

Why reject a theory out of hand that requires an uncaused first cause, the universal Father, and shows that the universe expanded from its centerpoint of Paradise?

Quote:
What's the evidence for the Big Bang?

For one thing, we look in the sky and see it! The universe is permeated with microwave radiation that has been traveling through space ever since the universe cooled to the point where it was transparent. The detailed spectrum and anisotropy (lumpiness) of the radiation have been measured with excellent precision by the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, and the agreement with theory is so good that scientists can even relate its features to quantities like the speed of sound waves traveling through the Big Bang fireball.

We also currently observe that the universe is expanding. Not only does this suggest that in the past everything must have been closer together, but it can even be proven mathematically from Einstein's general theory of relativity that the current expanding state of the universe traces back to a time when what is now the entire observable universe was smaller than a single atom.

The Big Bang theory makes a variety of predictions that have been borne out by observations. For example, it predicts that hydrogen and helium would be the only elements created in appreciable quantities in the early universe, and indeed we observe that the oldest stars contain only very small amounts of heavier elements.
http://www.lightandmatter.com/evolution/index.html


Quote:
Main Evidence

The Big Bang is the leading theory that almost all astrophysicists believe explains the origin of the universe. This is because all observations so far made support the Big Bang theory; there are four main lines of evidence that are most-often used.

The first was discussed above: The expansion of the universe. The universe is expanding now, so in the past it must have been smaller. If it were smaller in the past, then there probably was a time when it was infinitesimally small. One could ask why don't we think that it might be expanding now but it could have been shrinking before and we just don't know about it. The answer is that there is simply no mechanism that we know about that could accomplish this transition on a universal scale.

The second line of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) that was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs. They were working with a microwave receiver used to communicate with the Telstar satellite, but were getting noise from every direction they pointed the receiver. It was coming from all over the sky at what seemed to be exactly the same frequency. This was the first evidence for the CMB, and they later shared a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

WMAP CMB PictureThe CMB is an "echo" left over from when the universe was approximately 300,000 years old, as predicted by the Big Bang model. As something becomes compressed, as matter was when the universe was young, it becomes hot. The actual "heat" comes from particles' movements - the faster they move, the more energetic they are, and so the more heat we see. The universe was so hot before it was 300,000 years old that atoms could not form. Because of this, photons - particles of light - could not move around, for they kept reacting with electrons - the negatively charged parts of atoms.

Therefore, during this period, the universe was effectively opaque. Once the universe had reached 300,000 years old, atoms could form, and electrons were now bound to a nucleus. Once this happened, photons could move about freely. This "first light" is the CMB, and its existence is a very strong indication that the Big Bang occurred.

The third major pillar of the Big Bang theory lies in the abundance of the different elements of the universe. The theory predicts that certain amounts of hydrogen (~72%), helium (~28%), and other elements should be made. Observations have shown almost exactly the amounts that are predicted.

The fourth piece is that the Big Bang theory is the only one that comprehensively lays down a framework for the eventual evolution of the universe as we observe it today.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced ... gbang.html

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
In the documentary The Story of Everything, Stephen Hawking presents multiple evidences for the origin of the universe, the solar system, and the first life forms, saying that it suggests an intelligent designer for the laws of the universe.

http://vimeo.com/17777145

Hawking then suggests that there need not be a Creator if we allow for multiple universes, and that somehow, this is the universe where things happened just right for the appearance of intelligence life.

If the scientific community understands the theological implications of big bang cosmology as currently evidenced and demonstrated, why can't we understand it too?

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Yoder777 wrote:
Stephen Hawking later proved the big bang, and since then has attempted to provide alternative explanations that would not require a first cause.
Stephen Hawking didn't "prove the big bang". The big bang is a theory, not a fact. Though a bb theory may fit some observable data, it doesn’t even begin to explain the observed rate of expansion of the universe without the assumptions of dark matter and dark energy and without fudging with Einstein’s cosmological constant.

Contrary to what you suggest, controversy in the scientific community regarding the validity of a bb theory is increasing. And, for example, the latest (COBE) measurements of cosmic background radiation show that CBR is not uniform, which constitutes very strong evidence against a big bang.

Yoder777 wrote:
Why reject a theory out of hand that requires an uncaused first cause, the universal Father, and shows that the universe expanded from its centerpoint of Paradise?
Because it is clearly not supported by The Urantia Book. Period. Where does TUB state that the universe expanded from its centerpoint of Paradise!? And theories never "show" anything; theories only attempt to fit observables into a hypothetical mathematical framework. In the case of bb theory, obviously the framework is wrong.

Yoder777 wrote:
Hawking then suggests that there need not be a Creator if we allow for multiple universes, and that somehow, this is the universe where things happened just right for the appearance of intelligence life.
Are you seriously suggesting Hawking is right on this and TUB is wrong? There need not be a creator!? As far as I know Hawking never considered a respirating universe; maybe he should read The Urantia Book.

Yoder777 wrote:
If the scientific community understands the theological implications of big bang cosmology as currently evidenced and demonstrated, why can't we understand it too?
Are you kidding me? Big bang theories serve to promote the idea that God doesn’t exist, and that an infinite creator/upholder isn’t necessary to explain life the universe and everything.

Believe whatever you want brother Yoder, but TUB’s cosmology is very, very clearly incompatible with a big bang theory.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
DITTO ! :idea: :wink:

To ALL Of That Brother Bart 8)

TAO :wink:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 am +0000
Posts: 432
Hi Yoder,

At the risk of this appearing as though we're all "piling up" on you, I still feel compelled to emphasize brother Bart's comments. It is certainly true that the Big Bang theory has been the accepted working cosmological model for over half a century. However, you might find it interesting to know that pretty much each time we advance in our ability to observe the cosmos with new instruments and techniques, we find things that simply do not fit what the accepted theory predicted.

Of course, when this happens, the theoreticians go back and amend the theory to fit the observed data and then turn around and use that as further evidence the theory has been "correct" all along. There have been many iterations of this (often concomitant with new, super expensive observation facilities going online and getting back the first round of data).

This cycle accounts for why you get seemingly "weird" things in the Big Bang theory such as exponential space inflation during an arbitrary period in the early days of the universe (which is funny to me, because the reason the theoriticians believe it happened is because without it, the math just wouldn't work. That's a really weak argument to me). Which by the way, because of the inflationary period, the current Big Bang theory states that there is no center of the universe. Obviously, this directly contradicts the UB and reveals a misunderstanding of yours on what the theory actually says.

But let me tell you, we live in truly exciting times. As Bart mentioned, it's been pretty apparent for the past two decades that the theory just isn't holding up to observed data anymore without further and further adjustments. It reminds me of how a fundamentalist approaches the Bible (or UB) with each new geologic or scientific discovery that contradicts their accepted model. I hope that perhaps in our lifetime we will see a breakthrough in our understanding. Even now there are fascinating hints that all may not be as it seems with things like dark flow, the Great Attractor, Sloan & CfA2 Great Walls, anisotropic CMB, supervoids, etc). Trust me, as they turn on more and more of these new instruments and astronomers pour through the data, they will find more mysteries-- i.e. observations that simply don't fit. I am personally looking forward to the initial results from the ESA's Planck space observatory... should be any day now.

The Big Bang was based around some pretty basic assumptions. Over time, it's gotten more complex as we've learned more and more. Even cosmologists are unhappy with it nowadays, because it seems like everything just isn't quite as nicely put together out there as they have it on paper.

- quil


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
I am not going to spend too much effort arguing the big bang theory, as it's already been well accepted by the scientific community and is, at present time, the best explanation for the available evidence. If you believe you have an explanation which better fits the available data, please submit it to a peer reviewed science journal and perhaps you'll win a Nobel prize. I do not mean that sarcastically.

Due to its reluctance to allow for a beginning to the universe, with all the theological implications that beginning would entail, the scientific community would not have accepted the big bang theory if not for it being demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence. Perhaps current estimates as to the age of the universe are off, but the point still stands that the big bang theory demonstrates the necessity for an uncaused first cause and may suggest that the universe expanded from the centerpoint of the universe at Paradise.

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:22 pm +0000
Posts: 771
Bart wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting Hawking is right on this and TUB is wrong? There need not be a creator!?


No. I merely stated that the big bang showed the universe had a beginning, and Hawking has attempted to provide an alternative theory due to the theological implications. If scientists can see the writing on the wall, why can't we? Are we to be so fundamentalist about the Urantia Book that we aren't able to see a scientific evidence for the existence of God when there is one?

_________________
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Yoder777 wrote:
I am not going to spend too much effort arguing the big bang theory, as it's already been well accepted by the scientific community and is, at present time, the best explanation for the available evidence.
Brother Yoder, you can repeat that for ever if you like, but it’s not true. Currently, big bang theory is not well accepted by cosmologists, and there is more evidence against it than for it.
Yoder777 wrote:
If you believe you have an explanation which better fits the available data, please submit it to a peer reviewed science journal and perhaps you'll win a Nobel prize. I do not mean that sarcastically.
What available data? The big bang theory is based only on the observation that the universe is (currently) expanding. It cannot explain that this expansion appears to be accelerating (in certain phases) and e.g. that gravitational interaction between galaxies appears to defy our laws of gravity.

TUB’s space respiration, on the other hand, may both explain an expanding universe as well as accelerating and decelerating expansion in different phases. Depending on how far back in time we observe the universe, it will be either in an expanding or a contracting phase. And space respiration may explain the circular non-uniformity of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a recent observation which is obviously incompatible with big bang theories.

So TUB’s space respiration seems a much better (more complete) theory than a simple big bang. But it may be a long time before science will accept it, because space respiration implies some underlying respiratory mechanism that defies our simple laws of gravity. Accepting space respiration, would be virtually equivalent to acknowledging the existence of God, which (contrary to what you suggest) is something science is only very reluctant to do.

Yoder777 wrote:
Due to its reluctance to allow for a beginning to the universe, with all the theological implications that beginning would entail, the scientific community would not have accepted the big bang theory if not for it being demonstrated by multiple lines of evidence. Perhaps current estimates as to the age of the universe are off, but the point still stands that the big bang theory demonstrates the necessity for an uncaused first cause and may suggest that the universe expanded from the centerpoint of the universe at Paradise.
Why do you keep spinning this!? A big bang has NO THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AT ALL. Big bang theory implies that the universe exploded into existence from a massive singularity 13.7 billion years ago; so science can comfortably continue its quest for a wholly material theory of everything, WITHOUT the need for a first cause (or God).

The point will stand that big bang theory is NOT in any way compatible with The Urantia Book. To accept big bang theory is to reject the revelation. I wonder how long the administration will allow you to proclaim your nonsensical ideas regarding this topic. You are of course free to reject TUB based on whatever you like to believe. But without proper argumentation, I don’t think this board is the place for it.

Yoder777 wrote:
Bart wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting Hawking is right on this and TUB is wrong? There need not be a creator!?
No. I merely stated that the big bang showed the universe had a beginning, and Hawking has attempted to provide an alternative theory due to the theological implications.

If scientists can see the writing on the wall, why can't we? Are we to be so fundamentalist about the Urantia Book that we aren't able to see a scientific evidence for the existence of God when there is one?
Again you repeat the same nonsense. You say: "Hawking has attempted to provide an alternative theory due to the theological implications." WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Steven Hawking denies the existence of God. Main stream science denies the existence of God.

What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to confuse readers into believing that big bang theory proves the existence of God and TUB's cosmology is wrong? Why? And, indeed, I think we have to be so fundamentalist about TUB as to reject any scientific theory that is so clearly at odds with the book as is a big bang theory (especially if the book provides an alternative). In my view, that’s exactly what the fifth epochal revelation is for.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group