|
Urantia Book universe is like the Big Bang universe. But the ultimate fate of the universe is more like the Steady State concept than the Big Bang idea.
The Big Bang theorists tell us that our universe has three possible destinies, depending on its total mass. It may continue to expand forever, and just burn down to nothing. Or, it may stop expanding and begin to contract, ending in a Big Crunch. A third possibility is that the universe might reach an equilibrium point where it ultimately stops and neither expands or collapses. The Urantia Book author of Paper 11 tells us that the universe expands and contracts on a regular basis, each expansion or contraction taking a billion years. Obviously, there are limits in place controlling how far the universe can contract or expand. It would be catastrophic if galaxies were brought too close together; their mutual gravitation would cause chaos and disruption in each of them. And it would seem that expansion is limited by the speed of light. If uniform expansion is assumed then the galaxies are carried along with the space containing them. The outermost galaxies then travel at the highest rate of speed, and the speed of material objects cannot exceed the speed of light. So, the picture we see is the Master Universe expanding to some fraction of its average size, and then expanding beyond that average size by a like amount. Do the differences mean the cosmology of The Urantia Book is irreconcilable with the Bid Bang theory?
Some folks might say that the Big Bang is obviously wrong because it disagrees with The Urantia Book. Frankly, the evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory is very persuasive. However, there are problems with the theory that astronomers handle with various "work-arounds. " The problem with finding an alternative is that there is no other theory that so completely agrees with the observations. The Steady State theory died because it was not supported by the observed facts. Unless a new theory comes along to supplant the Big Bang, students of The Urantia Book will have to decide how to deal with criticism of the cosmology of this book. Shall we defend it, or shall we disown it when people challenge us on it?
Much depends on our beliefs about the book. And the time to decide our reactions may not be far in the future. Sooner or later, the public will become aware of The Urantia Book. We can hardly reconcile the cosmology of The Urantia Book with the Big Bang. Perhaps we can point to the authors' statement that the cosmology of the book is not divinely inspired and if we don't know where the truth lies, simply say, "I don't know, but I am willing to listen to all the theories and wait till enough evidence is in hand to make a reasoned judgment." It's hard to attack a person who is willing to intelligently discuss the issue at hand. We can also point out that there are problems with the Big Bang theory, and that new data could surface which shows science has been misinterpreting the evidence. It seems to me that it will be a real challenge to get a fair hearing from proponents of the Big Bang theory. But perhaps their reaction will depend in part on the image we project and our reaction to our critics.
It is good that we will not all respond the same way to challenges to The Urantia Book. It will show that we are not a closed community of people, unlike those in the rest of the world, but rather that we are a normal cross section of humanity, some unwavering in their beliefs, some skeptical, some naive, some gullible--and even some open-minded folks who are willing to consider all the evidence. In other words, we're just like them. And it's a lot easier for everybody to listen to ideas presented by people they are comfortable with--people who lower the drawbridge of hospitality rather than those who pour boiling oil on the strangers outside the walls. And maybe in the long run, the important thing is not who's right or who's wrong in their cosmology, but rather how we treated each other in the midst of controversy and heated argument.
|
|
