Problems with cosmology in the UB

14 posts · 5 participants · started Apr 9, 2026, 12:59 PM

1. M

   michaelascendingParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 12:59 PM

   I’m new to the forums and fairly new to the Urantia Books. I adore so much about the books, I resonate with nearly everything.

   The two areas that I find real problems are the cosmology of the grand universe, and the denial of reincarnation. The latter I will address in a separate post as I want to focus on the cosmology.

   The UBs paint the universe as a series of concentric circles orbiting the fixed point of Paradise. The 7 super universes rotate around the center with 4 outer layers of developing galaxies.

   It is proposed that the grand universe and outer bands are roughly lenticular in shape: it has a certain thickness, much like a platter.

   Now, I have never been a proponent of the big bang theory; I have always believed in a steady state universe. The UBs steer in a bit of a different direction, with rotation as a fundamental feature of the universe which I love. It just makes sense.

   However, there is a huge problem with this idea of a lenticular grand universe of concentric circles of matter, with 4 outer bands of developing galaxies. If this was the case, we would absolutely see the greatest density of observable galaxies along the x (horizontal) plane of the universe, with diminishing galaxies along the y (vertical) plane.

   Once past the galaxies within our own super universe, there should be absolutely NOTHING along the y axis; it should be completely barren of matter, an absolute void of immense size above and below.

   However, according to astronomers, the universe is fairly consistent, relatively evenly populated with galaxies in ALL directions. “Lumpy”, with voids, but still more or less evenly distributed.

   There are only a few possibilities to explain this discrepancy:

   1. The Divine authors of the UBs lied to us for some unfathomable reason

   2. The material was corrupted or edited by human hands before being disseminated

   3. Modern day astronomers are lying about the nature of the universe.

   I also acknowledge that the UBs specially state that our understanding of cosmology will evolve, as well as what they are trying to tell us of cosmology, but I feel this is too huge a discrepancy to be misunderstood; either the grand universe and outer bands are lenticular in shape, or they are not. If not, then the entire narrative collapses.

   Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

    

    

2. M

   MaraParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 2:32 PM

   michaelascending wrote:

   I’m new to the forums and fairly new to the Urantia Books. I adore so much about the books, I resonate with nearly everything.

   Hey there and welcome.

   So this is the way I think about your opening remarks.  Inspite of your concerns about discrepancies, apparently you haven’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater. It must be jarring for a scientist to reconcile his enlarging knowledge of science with his concepts of religion and religious beliefs. We are on the inside so to speak trying to discover what’s out there. I’m not a scientist. I think it’s complicated. I mean, how does one separate one’s science from one’s religion? Aren’t they supposed to harmonize somehow or other? Eventually? In the final analysis?  I get that the book’s  cosmology bothers you.

   I look forward to more discussion.

   Thanks for your topic.

    

3. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 5:30 PM

   Have you read about “respiration” yet?

    

   Welcome to the UB Forum!

    

   https://urassoc.arko.nyc/search/?zoom_sort=2&zoom_query=Respiration+&x=5&y=9

    

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

4. M

   michaelascendingParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 7:19 PM

   In truth the revelation that we all carry a fragment of the Creator within us is far far more important than figuring out if the universe is a rotating lens or an expanding sphere.

   But it still…bugs me.

5. M

   michaelascendingParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 7:21 PM

   Yes I remember that part.

   I’m not sure how that would affect the observations of a multitude of galaxies above and below the plane of the lenticular universe, however.

   Can you explain further?

6. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 7:26 PM

   michaelascending wrote:

   However, according to astronomers, the universe is fairly consistent, relatively evenly populated with galaxies in ALL directions. “Lumpy”, with voids, but still more or less evenly distributed. There are only a few possibilities to explain this discrepancy:

   1. The Divine authors of the UBs lied to us for some unfathomable reason

   2. The material was corrupted or edited by human hands before being disseminated

   3. Modern day astronomers are lying about the nature of the universe.

   Hmmm…I can offer at least 2 more “possibilities”:

   4.  Current astronomical observations are severely limited (still) by the range and capacity of available equipment.  The size, shape, and spatial formation of the grand universe is still entirely theoretical and hypothetical to mortal astronomers.  Every time new technology can see 10 times further, the universe gets 10 times bigger.  We have yet to establish any dimensional estimate I know of for the universe of time and space.

   The scientific method works best to demonstrate the current inadequacy of prior theoretical cosmologies.  Astronomers certainly don’t need to lie to be inaccurate!  They could simply be mistaken in their theoretical constructs which are not yet even based on thorough and objective observation.

   5.  Without such actual dimensionality of the Grand Universe, it is impossible to begin to estimate it’s size OR it’s shape.  Modern astronomers do not know the width of the vertical axis or the dimension of the y axis either one.

   Modern astronomers presume the entire universe is a singular entity regarding energy and matter relationships and causes and effects.  The Urantia Papers certainly contradict such an elementary, or primitive, reality perspective.  Not a perspective really so much as a simplistic explanation for our lack of information.  Remember the earth centric universe perspective?  Not so long ago.  Current theories are still so primitive compared to what is coming soon enough by technological advances!

   The UB teaches that there are so many divergent organizations of matter and energy, connected by the co-ordination of planning and management at both central and local levels of reality.

   I have always found the universe realities and coordinate cosmology presented in the Papers to be so rational and eloquently reasonable.  It seems to solve all modern dilemmas and paradox related to the origins and destiny of the material universes.

    

   Great topic!

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

7. M

   michaelascendingParticipant
   Apr 9, 2026, 8:16 PM

   Why do I think that the Authors of the UBs pegged the approximate thickness of the lenticular grand universe at 50 million light years? I could be entirely wrong on that of course, but that sticks with me. I need to find it.

   Part of the problem with understanding this is that they are so vague with labels and descriptions of aggregate matter. Universes, nebulae, but they avoid the term “galaxy” for some reason. I wish they had given us more detail like “on average x number of galaxies comprise a super universe” for example. Is it One, ten, one hundred, a thousand? I know they deal in total mass, not individual galaxies or clusters, but SOMETHING to give us a relative frame of reference would have been helpful.

   I will say I love the explanation of redshift in a steady-state evolving universe. The idea that astronomers are completely misunderstanding the movement of galaxies, that it’s local  movement, regional movement, super universe rotational movement and outer band rotational  movement that accounts for the red shift is just… brilliant. It fits perfectly in my head!

8. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Apr 10, 2026, 4:11 AM

   michaelascending wrote:

   Yes I remember that part. I’m not sure how that would affect the observations of a multitude of galaxies above and below the plane of the lenticular universe, however. Can you explain further?

   Respiration is only related as an example of a UB claim about the material universe that is contrary to current astronomical cosmologies but explains its observations and eliminates its paradoxical dilemmas regarding the motions of matter in space.

   What really is the “plane of the lenticular universe”?  What are its dimensions?  How wide and how thick?  Neither the length of the x axis or height of the y axis dimensions are known to modern science.  So how might one shape be contrasted to another by current astronomy?  I assume the big bang fiction presupposes a globular shaped universe expanding outward in every direction so both the X and Y axis are equal in diametric distances?  A most illogical presumption given actual observations.

   New article in Scientific American:

   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-thought-we-knew-the-shape-of-the-universe-we-were-wrong/

   Modern astronomy appears to me to be most confused and driven by unsettled conflicts betwixt observations not yet explained by any particular cosmological theories, which must be exceedingly creative related one to another, yet still unlikely explanations or solutions to our observations.

   It’s sort of like modern pharma creating an endless spectrum of treatments for the endless side effects of the endless treatments for which pharma creates new “solutions”.

   It is very interesting to see how the valid functionality of the scientific method devours the prior scientific conclusions, caught in endless mires of contradiction by chasing its own tail down rabbit holes of paradox.

   The method will eventually prevail we are told.  Science and religion pursue the same realities after all.  Both will get there quicker by reunification of their respective but shared pursuits I believe.

    

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

9. NN

   Nigel NunnParticipant
   Apr 10, 2026, 4:40 AM

   Hi michaelascending — hang onto your hat: astronomers HAVE in fact found two of your “lenticular” (elliptical toroidal) distributions of galaxies surrounding our place in space: (1) the “Local_Sheet” and (2) “Laniakea“.

   Astronomers currently estimate the radius of that Local Sheet to be about 30 million light years, which is a VERY good match to “over twenty-five million light-years” as mentioned in (12:1.14):

   “… beyond the periphery of the present grand universe we observe the beginnings of a zone of an unbelievable energy action which increases in volume and intensity for over twenty-five million light-years. These tremendous wheels of energizing forces are situated in the first outer space level, a continuous belt of cosmic activity encircling the whole of the known, organized, and inhabited creation.” (12:1.14)

   Regarding Laniakea, this toroidal distribution of mass-energy fits within a volume with radius almost exactly ten times bigger than the Local Sheet (i.e., about 300 million light years).

   The only issue with identifying these as the first two outer space levels is that they are not aligned horizontally as the papers appear to suggest. However, if we choose to indulge a little “courageous and independent cosmic thinking” (16:6.9), then we need only allow for the outer space levels not only to rotate AROUND, but also to precess OVER, the central grand universe.

   If you are interested in how all this fits together, you might enjoy this most recent of the videos (Draft 4E: “Redshift, Rotation and that Unbelievable Rate“) in this YouTube playlist. In this early version of Part 4E, I explore the outer space levels as described in the Papers, and speculate on a (surprising!) explanation for the redshift of galaxies beyond that “KBC Void” (see wiki: Local Hole).

   Please feel free to comment and critique!

   Nigel

    

10. B

    BradlyParticipant
    Apr 10, 2026, 4:01 PM

    Regarding the topic of reincarnation, consider a review and continuation of the topical discussion here:

     

    https://urassoc.arko.nyc/forums/topic/reincarnation/

     

    Or perhaps begin a new tọpic and discussion as you prefer!

    "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

11. E

    EdgarParticipant
    Apr 12, 2026, 6:11 PM

    One question that I have had always is, what exactly does UB reveal about that theory of the Big Bang? As far as I have understood of topic of the spacial respiration, its model is that of a steady state universe…

    I really would appreciate any comment regarding this topic. And thanks very much.

    Regards

    Edgar Paternina

12. B

    BradlyParticipant
    Apr 14, 2026, 4:05 AM

    Greetings Edgar!

    It is my layman’s understanding that the UB contradicts the Big Bang theory in multiple ways and that the BBT itself contradicts an increasing set of astronomical observations which deliver confounding dilemmas to unravel.

    Creation of matter and energy are continuous for example (according to the UB), rather than singular in origin (per BBT).  The density of creation is not dissipating by endless expansion of a steady mass either.

    Likewise, neither will the universe collapse upon itself by ultimately returning to, or restoring of the original singularity.

    Observable space bodies exhibit multiple directional trajectories which the UB explains but BBT cannot.  Besides Space Respiration, the 7 Super Universes and the Local Universes have distinct origins and evolutionary cycles, which means there are many sources and forms of motion in the universe of universes with very diverse origins and relationships, in addition to the Universal expansion and contraction respiration cycles, shared by the entirety of the creations of time.

    BBT also denies creationism, organization, creativity, experiential wisdom, regulatory systems management agencies, and progressive stabilization by evolutionary maturation and inevitable destinies of outcome.

    The UB tells a far different story of creation origins and destiny.

    I look forward to further research, supporting text, and reflections which might illuminate such comparisons.

    "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

13. B

    BradlyParticipant
    Apr 14, 2026, 1:04 PM

    https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/#intro

     

    Link to explanation of BBT (big bang theory).

     

    https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/math-and-science/resources/origin-of-the-universe/

     

    Link to presentation about limitations of and adjustments to BBT.

    Lots of modern observation data which conflicts with BBT and confounds modern theoretical science.   There will be many more…according to the Urantia Papers.

    "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

14. B

    BradlyParticipant
    Apr 14, 2026, 9:22 PM

    The UB contradicts BBT in so many ways, even lay people can identify several fundamental contradictions.

    To begin with, each of the 7 Super Universes have unique creation origins as do each of the 700,000 Local Universes.  If there were any “bangs” then there were many of them, not one.  The UB does not verify or describe any “bang” related to the creation and materialization of material realities.

    Modern science seems to agree with a universe age estimate of 13.8 billion years.  While the UB says our Super Universe of Orvonton began over 900 billion years ago.

    Quite a difference!

    57:1.1 (651.3)Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, which was onetime organized as a component part of the physical power and material matter of the local universe of Nebadon. And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago.

    57:1.2 (651.4)At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula.

    57:1.3 (651.5)987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.

    57:1.4 (651.6)900,000,000,000 years ago, the Uversa archives testify, there was recorded a permit issued by the Uversa Council of Equilibrium to the superuniverse government authorizing the dispatch of a force organizer and staff to the region previously designated by inspector number 811,307. The Orvonton authorities commissioned the original discoverer of this potential universe to execute the mandate of the Ancients of Days calling for the organization of a new material creation.

    57:1.5 (652.1)The recording of this permit signifies that the force organizer and staff had already departed from Uversa on the long journey to that easterly space sector where they were subsequently to engage in those protracted activities which would terminate in the emergence of a new physical creation in Orvonton.

    57:1.6 (652.2)875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was duly initiated. Only the presence of the force organizer and the liaison staff was required to inaugurate the energy whirl which eventually grew into this vast cyclone of space. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new physical system.

    "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

Reply on the current forum