Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:36 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Skeptic Inquiry is Fun
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:52 am +0000
Posts: 80
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, made the slightly crazy (but in my opinion admirable) goal of ridding himself of all previous beliefs in order to start from ground zero re-establishing his beliefs. His aim was to believe nothing which was not 100% abundantly absolute-spanking clear to him *my paraphrase.*

Therefore, when it comes to the skeptics corner in TUB forum, I'll be a skeptic not because I want to anger anyone but because it truly turns my crank to search a thing out to its core, and then search its core, then search my searchings of its core... you get the point.

I'll be no more critical of TUB than I am of the Bible, or of even my own experience.

There are a few issues in T.U.B. that I personally would like to address and would be much obliged if you'd address with me should you feel so inclined.

I've already pointed out the good things about the U.B.; it's crystal clear spiritual guidance, its universal scope, its coherence, its justice for all, its life-renewing effects.

I'm going to make a list of things I'm skeptical about, in no particular order, that I would love some discourse on.

-The authorship.
There are dozens of titles (obviously of celestial ranks and positions) from Melchizidek to Perfector of Wisdom, Divine Counselor, One High in Authority, Mighty Messenger, and more.

Being that we humans are not a part of this higher order, why are these titles not arbitrary? Some of them are explained, but they are explained relative to other titles which are similarly obscure.

Why is it so hard to find reference to the great majority of these titles (except a few Melchizidek, Ancient of Days) which were a priest from the book of Hebrews, whose author is unknown, and a name of God in Hebrew texts. Consider these names:
Quote:
"One without name and number,"
a mathematical paralogism?
Quote:
"Universal Censor"
I don't like censorship at all. As proof, I would be angry if the Urantia Book were censored from bookshelves. So when I think universal censor, I think "Can you smell the paper burn, sending smoke high into the sky." to the tune of Angry Men from Les Miserables.
Quote:
Mighty Messenger
as opposed to what.. a Mangy Messenger, a Speedy Messenger, a Translucent Messenger -- what is the title supposed to mean by saying its mighty? It sounds self-aggrandizing.
Quote:
Brilliant Evening Star
This is just confusing. From our perspective this would be the planet Venus, but that's obviously not it.
Quote:
Chief of Archangels
The only Chief of Archangels I've ever known was Jesus I thought Archangel was as high as it gets you know.
Quote:
Solitary Messenger
These things sound awesome. I don't know how they move 3x the speed of light either since I thought that was impossible.
Quote:
Chief of Evening Suns
Again, awesome title, but I have no idea what it means relative to myself or to T U B.

---

OK well let's switch to the next topic, Eugenics.



Eugenics
The eugenics chapter regarding advice for Urantians on DNA preservation is just a tough read given the time this was written, when Eugenics was in vogue, just prior to WWII. It's not the effect of Eugenics (improved DNA) but the cause of said effect that's always troubled me. What is the process by which defective strains of DNA are removed and what is the process by which the exquisite ones preserved? This seems to have no easy answer, but the Nazi's had some ideas.


---


Exact location in the universe
The Urantia Book posits a lot of different unvierses, very elegantly and compellingly, I might add. It is my understanding that our Milky Way Galaxy resides in the far corner of the local universe Nebadon, which is part of the larger superuniverse of Orvonton. Supposing we had a Hubble Space Telescope, only 10,000x more powerful, how far do we need to look to see outside of Nebadon, into another part of Orvonton? Also Is Satania definable in terms of our "known" universe? It seems it should be, since it's only one of many smaller sectors of Nebadon! And how big is Satania? Can we see outside of Satania? If we can't chart at least some of the cartographical data given to us in TUB, doesn't that make the names and locations of celestial places in TUB all arbitrary and meaningless?


---


The sleeper/writer/pseuo-author/dreamer/interpreter

I don't know what actually to call him--the one man in the world who heard from Melchizideks and Ancient of Days alike. I do not know what kind of channeling he was doing. TUB Website says it was not channeling and that it was unlike anything he'd ever seen channellers do. In other words, the process is completely indescribable and undefinable, in other words, NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THIS BOOK ACTUALLY CAME ABOUT!

Ok I'm ducking behind the firing line now. Just remember I'm the annoying skeptic that agrees with you, not the annoying skeptic that disagrees with you (i.e. I like T.U.B, I have learned a great deal from it, and I think it's probably on Earth for a very good reason, and I THINK IT'S A GOOD BOOK.) Be nice to me.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1055
I agree with your observations. A couple of responses from my point of view. The names of places, and probably even the titles of the authors, *are* arbitrary. The revelators say early on that they do not speak english and are experiencing problems coming up with 'word symbols' to communicate with us. I have no doubt that location names such as "Divinington" are poor approximations of the real name for the place, being that the book is not written in the Orvonton language (if it were, it would serve no purpose). The titles of the authors may be similarly derived and are simply attempts to translate complex concepts to the finite minds of mortal beings.

With regard to eugenics in the book, you have to remember that the book is written from the perspective of beings who have existed for millions of years. They are looking at our planet from a timeline that cannot be understood from someone whose lifetime is around 70 years. They are thinking about our planet on a much larger timescale; eugenics, as envisioned by TUB, will not occur in our lifetimes or even in our grandchildrens lifetimes. We have a lot of work to do in terms of gaining a mature, more spiritual perspective and society before improving our genetics can even be considered.

With regard to *how* the book was delivered to us, everyone who was involved with it says that it is a mystery. They don't even know how it got here. To me, that is just more validation that the book is what it says it is, a 5th epochal revelation from spiritual intelligences on a cosmic plane far beyond anything we mortals on earth can understand. That doesn't bother me in the least. The content and truth of the book stands on its own. I cannot tell you how many times, as I read the book for the first time (from a perspective of skepticism and actually looking forward to picking it apart and making fun of it); how many times I said to myself in astonishment, "No human would have written this" upon reading certain passages in the book.


Not everyone experiences it the way I do, or the way you do. It is a very personal experience.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 1055
Just another thought on the eugenics issue. You ask, "What is the process by which defective strains of DNA are removed and what is the process by which the exquisite ones preserved?"

It is not uncommon now for prenatal testing to reveal genetic abnormalities and diseases which are then confirmed and the information provided to the parents. Many states allow such pregnancies to be terminated early on if the parents so choose, in order to prevent the abnormal genetic strain from being propagated.

I am sure you are familiar with Darwin's 'survival of the fittest', which is the answer to the second part of your question.

The key is to not think of the book's remarks about eugenics as a 'here and now' thing; but as a natural societal evolution over thousands and thousands of years of planetary time. The answer lies in evolution, not revolution.

P750:1, 66:6.6 The Dalamatia teachers sought to add conscious social selection to the purely natural selection of biologic evolution. They did not derange human society, but they did markedly accelerate its normal and natural evolution. Their motive was progression by evolution and not revolution by revelation. The human race had spent ages in acquiring the little religion and morals it had, and these supermen knew better than to rob mankind of these few advances by the confusion and dismay which always result when enlightened and superior beings undertake to uplift the backward races by overteaching and overenlightenment.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Online

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4674
Greetings!! Yes, every reader/student of the Papers must wrestle with these and many other issues that challenge/conflict with our own preconceptions or issues that deliver completely new concepts and paradigms of reality and our place within such perspective. Some readers attain conviction much quicker than others....I was slow to realize eventual confidence in the claims of the authors myself and remain empathetic to those students who have yet to attain such confidence for themselves.

I disagree that the names of beings and places are arbitrary. They are totally new concepts of reference for us however and are named as a language interpretative exercise for a nonexistent vocabulary (English has/had no equivalent terminology that would not merely deliver confusion). There is an obvious relationship between many names to one another and/or to functionality of being....so arbitrary is not the correct term....the words are not disassociated with one another....but, rather, are presented with the consistency one might expect in interpreting one language into another IMO.

I agree with Agon on eugenics....the time unit perspective combined with greater wisdom and love applied to such perspective is required to even begin to appreciate the normal process, the disruption to that process, and the unique position of our world in resolving or addressing the issue. I don't think the text is trying to instruct us on how to proceed but, rather, contrast the normal process to our disrupted process to illuminate answers to the question - "why are things as they are today? How'd we get here? Is this normal? If not, how so not?"

If one believes that the Most Highs rule in the kingdom of men and also believe in epochal evolutionary planetary progression that is managed by the Most Highs, then IMO one may presume all such challenges to our progress are being managed by those with great expertise and wisdom in all such matters as Urantia, while unique, is not all THAT unique regarding disruption of "normal" epochal progress - every tenth world +/- is a decimal world - unique by definition - and all worlds are unique in their way - and the failure of a Material Son and Daughter or the default of a Prince are not without prior consequences, challenges, and resolution for the Most Highs.

While the authorship and origination process of the Papers fascinates many, even to the point of obsession for some, the scheme to disassociate the text itself in a way that requires the reader to measure and weigh the contents separate from those questions is amazingly effective to me. It took several readings and years of reading for those issues to - somehow - lose relevance and importance as a student of the contents alone. I came to realize that no single mind wrote the text and no human perspective resides between the book covers and despite multiple authors (obviously) that there is seamlessly woven from front to back an amazingly integrated and uniform set of concepts regardless of the voice or perspective of the particular authors.

I have found, by way of analogy, that being a serious student and rigorous reader of the Papers, is like building a watch from a kit of parts and pieces. Each of those is amazing and interesting on their own (facts and truths isolated from one another found within the container of parts and pieces). Over time, the cogs of two gears mesh and create a movement together that moves another part once affixed into greater and greater mechanical functionality which then connect to another set of elements which begins to make sense in its operation....until one day, seemingly suddenly (but not quickly), the dang thing starts going "tick-tock" in a performance of integrated functionality and wondrous inter-dependence. I think the UB is something like that....a student constructed device of integrated data that will never function to its potential until truths discovered are realized in their living which answers questions that were not answerable before....and results in a functional unit that is differentiated by the unique mind and experience of the one who constructed the pieces into mechanism (which to me is the philosophy of living based upon living truth personally - all devices so constructed function but not with any singular methodology or result - granted, it's a poor analogy).

But even more amazing is the fact that there is no end point to the potential of functionality that lies within the text once we fully engage mind, soul, will, and love into a personalization of reality aligned perspective, priority, and choice. When the fruit of the spirit begins to emerge, we move from encouraged to confident that we are indeed attached to the living vine. Likely, my mechanical analogy is highly inferior to the living seed, vine, flower, seed, vine, flower, seed.......in this perpetual and eternal growing in the Spirit which does not require the UB to experience....yet, the UB is written specifically to encourage and nourish such a life. Spiritization is certainly not mechanical in any regard but I hope my analogy may serve to illustrate a progressive process and result which continues to progress and result?

Sorry not to address the issues specifically or as posted....just some personal reflection on the greater issues that touch upon such details as listed.

Best wishes to all who embark upon the reading of this marvelous light upon the pilgrim's path.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Redtread wrote:
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, made the slightly crazy (but in my opinion admirable) goal of ridding himself of all previous beliefs in order to start from ground zero re-establishing his beliefs. His aim was to believe nothing which was not 100% abundantly absolute-spanking clear to him *my paraphrase.*


Descartes did nothing more than obscure the geometry of the Ancient Greek with that great error of analytics. He stood on the shoulders of the worst of the geometers of ancient times (the Pythagoreans). Essentially, he invented a mathematics that justified the flat Earthers. He stood on the shoulders of those plane geometers that were standing on quicksand. He propagated the metaphysical error of confusing the ideal with the finite. TUB has this to say about the likes of Descartes and his ilk.

195:6.8 Materialism reduces man to a soulless automaton and constitutes him merely an arithmetical symbol finding a helpless place in the mathematical formula of an unromantic and mechanistic universe. But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician? Science may expatiate on the conservation of matter, but religion validates the conservation of men's souls—it concerns their experience with spiritual realities and eternal values.


Redtread wrote:
-The authorship.
There are dozens of titles (obviously of celestial ranks and positions) from Melchizidek to Perfector of Wisdom, Divine Counselor, One High in Authority, Mighty Messenger, and more.


Examine their fruits, not their names. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare A fig is a fig is a fig, by any other name would taste as good, and I don't give a fig what you call it.


Redtread wrote:
Eugenics
The eugenics chapter regarding advice for Urantians on DNA preservation is just a tough read given the time this was written, when Eugenics was in vogue, just prior to WWII. It's not the effect of Eugenics (improved DNA) but the cause of said effect that's always troubled me. What is the process by which defective strains of DNA are removed and what is the process by which the exquisite ones preserved? This seems to have no easy answer, but the Nazi's had some ideas.


Why keep wringing your hands about this one on the ground of "political incorrectness". The abortion industry is fast gaining on the Nazis in human slaughter, yet we call it a choice. We may be owners of our own bodies but not the owner of other person's bodies. An unborn child is another persons's body, yet they have no choice at all.


Redtread wrote:
Exact location in the universe
The Urantia Book posits a lot of different unvierses, very elegantly and compellingly, I might add. It is my understanding that our Milky Way Galaxy resides in the far corner of the local universe Nebadon, which is part of the larger superuniverse of Orvonton. Supposing we had a Hubble Space Telescope, only 10,000x more powerful, how far do we need to look to see outside of Nebadon, into another part of Orvonton? Also Is Satania definable in terms of our "known" universe? It seems it should be, since it's only one of many smaller sectors of Nebadon! And how big is Satania? Can we see outside of Satania? If we can't chart at least some of the cartographical data given to us in TUB, doesn't that make the names and locations of celestial places in TUB all arbitrary and meaningless?


Blame Descartes for this one. He insisted that there are exact locations in space because his space was absolute. There is no such thing as an exact location in space. Space is in motion. Trying hitting a moving target at the exact location that it was when you pulled the trigger. Sorry, you have just failed the audition for "American Sniper". You have missed your target. Did Descartes give you the correct coordinates?


Redtread wrote:
The sleeper/writer/pseuo-author/dreamer/interpreter

I don't know what actually to call him--the one man in the world who heard from Melchizideks and Ancient of Days alike. I do not know what kind of channeling he was doing. TUB Website says it was not channeling and that it was unlike anything he'd ever seen channellers do. In other words, the process is completely indescribable and undefinable, in other words, NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THIS BOOK ACTUALLY CAME ABOUT!


How did you and I come about? That is the better question. You are completely indescribable and undefinable as a creature of God. Marvel first at that fact. O:)


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

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:52 am +0000
Posts: 80
@mannyc

Descartes made a lot of mistakes, as did all philosophers.

The device you used to access this page and type your response is 100% a product of Analytic Geometry.

It's also mechanistic. So what is your complaint exactly with Descartes?

T.U.B. reprimands mechanistic materialism, which is not cartesian. T.U.B. affirms God's having made natural laws that behave reliably, which by extension is "gasp" mechanistic.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Redtread wrote:
The device you used to access this page and type your response is 100% a product of Analytic Geometry.


I cannot disagree more. This devise is 100% digital. It is discrete zeros and ones. Nothing analytic about it.


Redtread wrote:
It's also mechanistic. So what is your complaint exactly with Descartes


This is computation not calculation. One is discrete the other is continuous. The difference is that motion is discrete because time is discrete. Remember that TUB says that "time is a succession of instants". Paradise patterns are discrete, recursive self-similar constructs.

Jesus gave qualified approval of greek teachings but mentions specifically the "Allegory of the Cave" in Book Seven of "Republic" of Platonic dialogues. This illustration effectively shows the clear separation of the Ideal and the shadows on the cave wall. If you have not read it, I recommend doing so. The mixing of the two is the great metaphysical confusion that TUB mentions as a stumbling block in our progress.

I have no complaints with regard to Descartes. Anyone can be wrong and he most certainly was wrong. It is the sycophants of succeeding scientists that cannot question the 'giants' of the past and so they perpetuate their mistakes rather than correct them based on new knowledge and experience. I have already told you of Descartes big mistake and that was "coordinate space". We still use it despite the knowledge that space is expanding! A Nobel Prize was given to Perlmutter et al for work in the late 90s showing that space expansion was, not only expanding, but that the expansion was in acceleration. TUB confirms it. Try doing your analytic geometry on a graph that is expanding at every point.

Redtread wrote:
T.U.B. reprimands mechanistic materialism, which is not cartesian. T.U.B. affirms God's having made natural laws that behave reliably, which by extension is "gasp" mechanistic.


This is absolutely false. Natural laws are minded, not mechanistic. Even Physics must concede that their experiments vary with observation. Observation requires an observer. An observer has a mind. Mind over matter is not a flippant saying. I wish you well in your quest for extended discoveries in experiencing life given the information we receive from TUB.


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

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
'' Jesus gave qualified approval of greek teachings but mentions specifically the "Allegory of the Cave" in Book Seven of "Republic" of Platonic dialogues. This illustration effectively shows the clear separation of the Ideal and the shadows on the cave wall. If you have not read it, I recommend doing so. The mixing of the two is the great metaphysical confusion that TUB mentions as a stumbling block in our progress''

Excellent example mannyc 8)

Allegory of the Cave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html


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

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:52 am +0000
Posts: 80
@mannyc Your response is awesome, well thought out, and makes me want to talk further. Thanks for your thinking! :)

I appreciate the distinction you've made between discreet and analytic, especially that the activity going on in computers, microprocessors is discrete (1's and 0's) yes/no true/false. I should clarify the confusion, and I'm very excited to hear your response.

I'm a career machinist, but eventually I want to finish engineering school. Therefore I'm familiar with some of the aspects of upper level mathematics as it relates to my field.

Analytical geometry is essential for measuring forces and stresses in machine parts, the kinematics of machinery, including thermodynamic forces as they move through mechanical systems.

Indeed, this is even the case inside electronic devices, where heat transfer and dissipation is a major engineering concern.

Analytical Geometry is so useful for solving so many problems. Yes it "idealizes" space in a perhaps non-actual way and is therefore capable of some imperfections and irrationalities on the margins, but these can be corrected, and I don't see anyone proposing an alternative system that can solve the problems AG is essential in solving, like

Electrical and computer engineering
Engineering in general
Physics
(along with Calculus)

all of these fields AG is absolutely essential to (and yes your computer discrete as it may be, was made by a team of engineers confronting thousands of problems and factors in computer design yet engineering, predicting, and testing fully on a Cartesian system)



My problem when talking with most of the anti-Cartesians is that I see
1) No awareness of the positive changes that the cartesian system has brought - even though they are manifold.
2) Rejection of the cartesian system without proposing an alternative theory that actually works.

---

You say reality is mindal, not mechanistic. That's fine. Mechanism is a theory, and may be technically wrong on a number of counts. One count where it is not wrong is that certain universe forces (especially in our everyday, middling experience of undistinguished reality) things behave in a predictable fashion so much so that one might refer to them as mechanistic, and such a reference would not be innacurate.

As a machinist I design parts to within 0.0001" inches and sometimes smaller, and no surprise, when we do it right, we can consistently make parts that are exactly the size we need over and over again, sometimes for thousands of parts. The mechanical accuracy achievable is astonishing, mindal or not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Hi Redtread,
My undergraduate degree is in engineering so I can definitely relate.

Redtread wrote:
Analytical geometry is essential for measuring forces and stresses in machine parts, the kinematics of machinery, including thermodynamic forces as they move through mechanical systems.


You must remember that for engineers who deal with tolerances, things have to be good enough, not perfect. The mathematics you use is very precise and exacting and at the narrow levels between the very large and the very small this is just fine. It works well enough. But you must be aware that the finite is never perfect. Entropy comes into play because space is expanding. So we compensate and fiddle and push the equations towards the data.

In graduate school I studies biomedical engineering. Suddenly, the "machines" were made of flesh and blood. Modelling the mechanics of a femur was not as easy and modeling a stainless steel rod. You have cortical and trabecular bone in irregular shapes with varying boundary conditions. This presents a very big problem and you can throw analytics out the window. Bone has turnover with continual osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity. And they are all connected to a brain that thinks and adapts. There is growth and decay at rates unimaginable in a steel machine. Computers are what we relied on and finite methods called finite element stress/strain analysis. We relied on irregular grids of points that had to be assigned data and that data was computed. And that was 35 years ago and still we have many problems to solves when designing an artificial hip with biocompatible material alloys. Just ask the lawyers.

Redtread wrote:
My problem when talking with most of the anti-Cartesians is that I see
1) No awareness of the positive changes that the cartesian system has brought - even though they are manifold.
2) Rejection of the cartesian system without proposing an alternative theory that actually works.


I hope that you are aware that AG and the calculus could never hope to sent an orbital into space. It was not till computers became sufficiently powerful that a satellite could be launched to effect an orbit about the Earth. And still, these orbits decay and we send more up, hoping to keep them up long enough to be useful.

Imagine if the moon had the same problem. Still, the moon's orbit is expanding because we are in an imperfect finite realm. Still, Astrophysicist cannot tell you the forces that involved in maintaining an orbit. Astounding! Take your elliptical equation from AG. It describes the ellipse perfectly at every point but what of the forces. With current gravitational theory, it is a spherical field and we are still stuck with the inverse square law from the time of Newton. If you recall, the elliptical orbit of the Earth has a ghost foci. The other foci is the Sun. How can an empty foci exert a force?

In a spherical gravitational field gravitational forces must vary with every point on that ellipse in order to pull back the Earth from its extreme distance from the Sun and ease the force when the Earth is at its closest. The inverse square law and a constant force of gravity would release the orbital at the furthest extreme and crash the Earth into the Sum at its closest. Has anybody questioned that fact in 400 years!?

TUB clues us to the fact that Linear Gravity is not a spherical field but a toroidal field. The axial tilts to the planets and the Sun makes it such that at every point in the ellipse a different gravitational pull is experienced by the bodies involved, depending on the plane angle perpendicular to the axis of the rotating spheres. Only this fact explains the elliptical orbits. I would refer you to the "Pioneer Anomaly" and the "Saturn Anomaly" where the astronomers and astrophysicist are dumbstruck at the fact that these orbiting object are not exactly where predicted. Oops!


Redtread wrote:
As a machinist I design parts to within 0.0001" inches and sometimes smaller, and no surprise, when we do it right, we can consistently make parts that are exactly the size we need over and over again, sometimes for thousands of parts. The mechanical accuracy achievable is astonishing, mindal or not.


Please do not be impressed with these tolerances when the tolerances of an atom are astonishingly smaller. And this distance becomes untold light years in the macrocosmos. Even in the nano tech world 0.0001" is totally unacceptable.

Your AG is fine for the machine shop and there is "good enough" for a jet engine, but it won't fly for quantum physics and it won't fly for astrophysics.

At least with computing we can get ever greater approximations with increasing computing power. But mind is infinite. Without mind, even the atoms of the steel of your machines fall apart. You cannot predict my freewill mind and I cannot predict yours.

Redtread wrote:
You say reality is mindal, not mechanistic. That's fine. Mechanism is a theory, and may be technically wrong on a number of counts. One count where it is not wrong is that certain universe forces (especially in our everyday, middling experience of undistinguished reality) things behave in a predictable fashion so much so that one might refer to them as mechanistic, and such a reference would not be innacurate.


The Ultimatons are as predictable as persons. Motion is undefined and underived and existential. The Havona Spheres of the Central Universe have alway moved around Paradise.


42:7.10 The first twenty-seven atoms, those containing from one to twenty-seven orbital electrons, are more easy of comprehension than the rest. From twenty-eight upward we encounter more and more of the unpredictability of the supposed presence of the Unqualified Absolute. But some of this electronic unpredictability is due to differential ultimatonic axial revolutionary velocities and to the unexplained “huddling” proclivity of ultimatons. Other influences—physical, electrical, magnetic, and gravitational—also operate to produce variable electronic behavior. Atoms therefore are similar to persons as to predictability. Statisticians may announce laws governing a large number of either atoms or persons but not for a single individual atom or person.



Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1419
Speaking to "persons as to predictability" do you remember the melody to these lyrics?

Don't forget Winona,
Kingman, Barstow, San Bernardino,
Get your kicks on Route 66


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Redtread wrote:
I appreciate the distinction you've made between discreet and analytic, especially that the activity going on in computers, microprocessors is discrete (1's and 0's) yes/no true/false. I should clarify the confusion, and I'm very excited to hear your response.



Allow me to clarify further the error Descartes committed. He either ignored or was ignorant of the fact that there is only one point. He could not see. He created, without God's permission, infinite points on his graph and called them coordinate points. This allowed him to assign value to these points of his making. He created an absolute space, without God's permission, and said that these values had a trinity designation, x,y, and z. In his remaking of the Universe in his image, he usurped the Creator. Descartes made it possible for mathematics to give value where God had not and thus, Descartes made an false idol and a separate reality from God. We still suffer from his "error" to this day.

Before Descartes, anything that was "constructible" could be done with a straight edge and compass. The straight edge is a square of right angle. This is still true today. The is nothing that can be made that is not made with these two constructs. Take a compass and see it as a vertex point and two other points extending from that vertex. This is a total of three points. These three points are one, in reality. None of the three points of the compass can exist apart. They are all three equally important for the instrument to be. In the ideal compass, the compass is a line when closed or open completely to 180 degrees. A compass can construct infinite orthogonal circles. It can contract infinite radii and infinite points. It just so happens that these infinite points are not in an absolute space and these infinite points are all ONE. These points are the focus of space. The ONE point is origin and destiny. The is only one point and only one line, and only one plane.

All that is needed to construct the Universe is zero and one. This fact is encapsulated in Eurler's Formula, e^iπ + 1 = 0.

The only problem with the human geometer is that there was this thing called infinity that was a mental stumbling block for the Greeks, who did not acknowledge infinity and were afraid of this unknown. There are infinite gradations in a straight edge and infinite points in an arc or circle that was constructed with their compass. Their accuracy was limited by this lack of fineness. God does not have these limitations since His very being is Infinite. The calculus that was to follow Descartes built on his error of usurping the Infinite with the infinitesimal. A mathematical world was then made by man and to follow was the inglorious machinations of mechanistic philosophy.

To the rescue of this man-made world of calculation, came the computer. You must now think of the computer as a devise that can do the work of the compass and straight edge but to a much higher degree of accuracy and approximation. The perfection of the infinite is never reached but at least we are striving to be Godlike and not manlike. We can now construct using only zeros and ones. The digital age has changed everything because we are striving in the direction of God's reality and not man's reality. We cannot construct the perfect circle because no computer can tell us what the value of π is to infinite digits. But we can continue to make progress to eternity in that direction, Godward.

The computer is our modern day compass and straight edge. We were sidetracked for a long time with this analytics, but that is over, almost.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 1001
Redtread wrote:

The sleeper/writer/pseuo-author/dreamer/interpreter

I don't know what actually to call him--the one man in the world who heard from Melchizideks and Ancient of Days alike. I do not know what kind of channeling he was doing. TUB Website says it was not channeling and that it was unlike anything he'd ever seen channellers do. In other words, the process is completely indescribable and undefinable, in other words, NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THIS BOOK ACTUALLY CAME ABOUT!



there's some mystery there but i think we have some ideas gleaned from this:

Quote:
114:7.9 On many worlds the better adapted secondary midway creatures are able to attain varying degrees of contact with the Thought Adjusters of certain favorably constituted mortals through the skillful penetration of the minds of the latters’ indwelling. (And it was by just such a fortuitous combination of cosmic adjustments that these revelations were materialized in the English language on Urantia.)


and

Quote:
The Adjuster of the human being through whom this communication is being made enjoys such a wide scope of activity chiefly because of this human’s almost complete indifference to any outward manifestations of the Adjuster’s inner presence; it is indeed fortunate that he remains consciously quite unconcerned about the entire procedure. He holds one of the highly experienced Adjusters of his day and generation, and yet his passive reaction to, and inactive concern toward, the phenomena associated with the presence in his mind of this versatile Adjuster is pronounced by the guardian of destiny to be a rare and fortuitous reaction. And all this constitutes a favorable co-ordination of influences, favorable both to the Adjuster in the higher sphere of action and to the human partner from the standpoints of health, efficiency, and tranquillity.


and from the various accounts of the sleeping subject and the sadler group like here:http://ubhistory.org/Documents/HB19971114_MichaelsK_26.pdf

i'm no expert on channeling but i think being asleep and unconscious of the events rather than conscious or in a trance makes the "how" different from channeling.

btw regarding the logic of "those without name and number" the UB says
Quote:
More strictly translated, their name would be “Those above Name and Number.”


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

Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:52 am +0000
Posts: 80
Which of these pictures generated by computers proves that computers are liberating us from the need for AG?

Image
This optical engineering data?
Image

you mentioned Toroidal fields

Image

Here are some different types of Toroids drawn using AG.

Image

A satellite moving in Earth's gravitational field.
Image

Satellite tracking information for Delfi-C3, graphed, signed, sealed, and delivered with AG.

Image

Lastly a gravity map made using a computer and AG (distinctly non-toroidal, but spherical) in nature.

In summary, computers are not the end of AG - they use it all the time. AG provides useful information about our world.

---

Lastly, as to your analysis on Descartes, I find it interesting.

I do agree with you about one thing; the idea of infinite points in a theoretical space is not an observed phenomenon in reality, therefore some irrationalities have arisen in the field of mathematics due to, in my opinion, a misapplication of this idea. But this is again to say Descartes was human and fallible, therefore some mistakes certainly exist in his system, as it is a human system.

There are geometers who have proposed alternate systems. Synergetics, by Buckminster Fuller, is the most rational systematic approach against Descartes' system that I have read. Interestingly, Fuller is a Unitarian Christian (doesn't subscribe to belief in trinitarian nature of God) but his system has more in common with what you are saying is trinitarian. Regardless, Synergetics https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/synergetics is a fascinating read and I highly recommend it to you for a systemic approach against Cartesian geometry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:23 pm +0000
Posts: 641
Hi Redtread,
I really appreciate your visual presentation.

Redtread wrote:
Which of these pictures generated by computers proves that computers are liberating us from the need for AG?


It is not a matter of liberation from AG. Computers have just made it possible to put graphs on graphic programs and even animate them. But notice that there are severe limitations because degrees of freedom are two dimensional. Before computers the "pictures" where drawn on paper with straight edge and compass. They remain depictions, however. Data points graphed on the cartesian graph are static. There is no motion there because there is no "time" axis on the cartesian graph. Descartes, Newton and the rest also subscribed to an absolute linear time, but such is impossible in a space that is absolute. Einstein liberated time from its absoluteness (time dilation) but kept it as a linear dimension, which also precludes motion. He and Minkowski knew somehow that time and space must be orthogonally related but did not know how to relate a line to a cube orthogonally. Along came the imaginary plane to the rescue. What a neat trick, but a trick non the less.

A computer cannot model itself because it cannot project itself. A thing cannot imagine itself. Only mind can make a two dimensional construct a three dimensional picture, as in your torus pictures. Artist discovered this in the renaissance my use of perspective, there the painting was given depth by following lines that focused on infinity. The mind does the rest and the flat painting has more apparent reality in three dimensions. But the painting remains unreal in that it has no motion. A movie film gives us even more apparent reality because it projects an image that moves. But, the image is on a flat screen, and therefore, is not real. Our minds always add the missing dimensions because it can do that.

Gravity maps made by computers cannot depict gravity in reality. Nature is not modeled by computers. Nature has infinite degrees of freedom in motion. Computers cannot compute to infinite digits. What you do not realize is that motion is spiral. Nature is motion. Spiral motion involves the three transcendentals, π, Φ, and e. This motion is rotation and respiration. Imagine your torus spinning as it inflates and deflates. This is infinite degrees of freedom.

Engineering is not AG. Engineering is trial and error. The ancients had plenty of engineering and they did not have AG. AG is continuous linear functions because absolute linear time is implied in its curves. Computers make it obsolete because time is discrete. Computers are useless without mind because time is circular and only mind is relatively time free. Circles are transcendent constructions that mind can comprehend, but that computers cannot compute.


Redtread wrote:
Satellite tracking information for Delfi-C3, graphed, signed, sealed, and delivered with AG.


Is AG and computers tracking the satellite right into the ground when it falls out of orbit? What is a graph of frequency vs time tell us. Frequency is a rate that includes time. So, this graph is graphing turns over time over time. This is equivalent to saying turns over time squared. TUB tells us clearly that time is circular. Can you square a circle? Can a computer square a circle? Can God square a circle? TUB tell us that He cannot. Here the computer using AG graphs is employing the unreality of linear time. The orbital will crash but when.

Your Gravity map looks like a fractal. Are fractals linear? Are fractals spherical? Are they perfect spheres as in Havona or are they imperfect spheroids called tori?

Redtread wrote:
There are geometers who have proposed alternate systems. Synergetics, by Buckminster Fuller, is the most rational systematic approach against Descartes' system that I have read. Interestingly, Fuller is a Unitarian Christian (doesn't subscribe to belief in trinitarian nature of God) but his system has more in common with what you are saying is trinitarian. Regardless, Synergetics https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/synergetics is a fascinating read and I highly recommend it to you for a systemic approach against Cartesian geometry.


Fuller falls short. He fails to conclude that no "system" can model the realty of the finite because the finite is a projection of the infinite. This projection takes the relationships of the Trinity, orthogonality, and projects them onto the screens of moving space-time. This motion is spiral with infinite degrees of freedom and that makes it unpredictable. Space is a system of associated points. Points are that without parts. They are not in space, points are the focus of space and there is only one point. Every point in this system projects to space-time. And every point is the same point and can only be so because the point is not a location in space. AG insists on locations in space. This is impossible. There is no such a thing as a location in space. Read TUB on this. Paradise is the focus of space, but has no location in space.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: fanofVan, Google Feedfetcher


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group