Switch to full style
A forum for thought provoking questions & answers of a spiritual nature or as pertaining to the Urantia Papers.
Post a reply

Matthew Block

Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:35 pm +0000

Anyone read Square Circles or Matthew Block? Specifically, I'm wondering what your reaction is to his challenges to science in the Urantia Book?

Re: Matthew Block

Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:11 pm +0000

Matthew Block has served the readership well by investigating the source materials used in the compilation of the papers of The Urantia Book. While some of his analysis is suspect (I tend to think he is a bit overzealous in attribution), he has identified many striking examples.

I think it is an oversimplification to say he or anyone else challenges the "science" in The Urantia Book. First of all, what exactly is the science that's being referred to? In some minds there is a gray line between the science and cosmology presented in the book. For others, even authoritative historical statements presented explicitly to correct the record are regarded as "science".

Perhaps you can hone in on what specifically he asserts that you're wondering about?

Re: Matthew Block

Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:06 pm +0000

Please read the posting guidelines...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3582&p=42424#p42424
before embarking on a topic such as this one.

Larry

Re: Matthew Block

Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:52 pm +0000

Mistake wrote:Anyone read Square Circles or Matthew Block? Specifically, I'm wondering what your reaction is to his challenges to science in the Urantia Book?


I think you misunderstand my question. I am looking for a personal reaction to the science challenges. What do you think? I am not a scientist, and I do not wish to debate particular science issues. I am a long time reader and a beneficiary of the spiritual influences of the book, but am having trouble reconciling revelation with factual misstatements. One can read specific U book pronouncements like the distance to Andromeda or the nature of atoms with over 100 electrons, as fact or not. If you believe U book and not what present day science says, then you've answered my question. If you believe something else (like the time bomb theory), and share those thoughts with me, again, you've answered my question.

Re: Matthew Block

Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:27 pm +0000

lwatkins wrote:One can read specific U book pronouncements like the distance to Andromeda


TUB science is correct. The discrepancy lies in our misunderstanding of light. Light is real and has weight. Light is matter and space is in matter and moves with matter. Space is currently expanding and rotating around Paradise. This reality distorts our measurements of distance when we assume that light travels at a constant speed. Light travels with space and space is spiraling around Paradise. This represents a logarithmic acceleration of space and light itself. We are still stuck on stupid with Einstein's erroneous assumption of the constant speed of light. This constant speed of light was necessary for Einstein's theories because he had no constant anchor as a reference frame. Einstein had no concept of a fixed anchor, fulcrum, such a Paradise. Einstein had no notion of expanding space. He used the speed of light as his constant and the confusion continues.

TUB is clear on this and perfectly correct. O:)

Re: Matthew Block

Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:37 pm +0000

So far as I know, there are no factual errors in TUB. Some of the presumed errors are the result of either taking statements out of context or misinterpreting what's actually said there. There have been many critiques of UB science, philosophy, and religion, but if there has been any definitive evidence of an actual incorrect statement, scientific or otherwise, I am unaware of it. Certainly TUB does not corroborate much of current science or history or anthropology -- it's a revelation and its purpose is not to reinforce any present day beliefs but rather to point to new and better concepts, ways that may be difficult to immediately accept. Scientific theories change day by day -- they're not a yardstick by which to measure epochal revelation.

Larry

Re: Matthew Block

Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:27 pm +0000

Mistake wrote:Anyone read Square Circles or Matthew Block? Specifically, I'm wondering what your reaction is to his challenges to science in the Urantia Book?
Hi Mistake. (What's in a name? :?) I suggest you read the following topic: Matthew Block's The Sadler Project..

Re: Matthew Block

Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:37 am +0000

My personal reaction is that all statements concerning the history of our planet will stand the test of time. Why? Because they plainly tell us so! If any reader thinks differently regarding these types of statements, then it is my humble opinion that the reader has made an error in judgement.

Certain statements concerning the physical sciences will certainly stand in need of revision as we continue to pierce the veil of mysteries of material reality.

Is Andromeda 1 million light years or 2 million light years away? "Science" keeps changing its estimate so at this point I really have no idea if that one needs to be revised. But if it does, then it does. The revelators were limited to present what current human knowledge acquired when discussing the physical sciences so it would not surprise me if it ends up qualifying as one of those statements. But it would not surprise me if it ends up agreeing, either. Frankly, as long as the order of magnitude is the same I really don't care. The variance is noise. I think it's a nonissue.

I also tend to think that many other statements that "seem" to be in need of revision actually aren't. My personal take lately is that at the time the papers were indicted, certain "unknown" forces were about to be known, specifically nuclear forces. Some of those statements are what need to be revised. They're not "unknown" anymore.

But to throw out ultimatons because particle physics doesn't currently incorporate them? Nonsense! That is revelatory material-- information they deemed necessary for us to understand matter at its most fundamental level. Information we'd otherwise never discover, or in their opinion, might discover too far off in the future.

Whatever the case, I don't think taking an absolutist position on this topic is wise. And I think the "time-bomb" theory is ridiculous.

Re: Matthew Block

Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:56 am +0000

tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tock?

Re: Matthew Block

Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:19 pm +0000

There actually was (is) evidence for the subdivision of an electron's charge. In fact those experiments done by Felix Ehrenhaft around the turn of the last century displayed a tendency for the charge to be broken into 100ths.

Just one of many write ups on this (which mentions 4 recent technical studies):
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... 1.abstract
Post a reply