Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not.

[tar]

disarray,

 

possible, but I am thinking there is another possibility, that this particular universe has evolved far enough to spawn us, and other reaches of this universe may indeed have planets with heavy elements, able to produce interesting, fitting characters

 

not anybody we are liable to be pen pals with however, given the huge nature of the place

 

Regards TAR

[B. John Jones]

B John Jones,

 

I am not interested in you talking about something I could not see for myself. If we are to talk about something, it should be something we both already have access to.

 

Regards, TAR

disarray,

 

 

Regards, TAR

Can you really ever depend on what you say you see? Have you ever been deceived by an optical illusion? What if those are honored who look beyond the stars, and dishonored who disregard him? Edited June 3, 2016 by B. John Jones

[tar]

I know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

[disarray]

There was no acausality in Aristotelian/Newtonian/Laplacean science. Perhaps one might add Einsteinian, as he famously said in response to the proposed randomness/acausality for which Quantum theory is known: "God does not play dice" (speaking of God in a metaphorical sense of course), though even his own work on relativity predicts a "spontaneous" Big Bang.

 

How the universe might have arisen ex nihilo without the first cause of some divine creator is the subject of much research, an idea perhaps widely popularized by Hawking. See also, "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

Edited June 7, 2016 by disarray

[B. John Jones]

Can you really ever depend on what you say you see? Have you ever been deceived by an optical illusion? What if those are honored who look beyond the stars, and dishonored who disregard him?

 

I know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

Optical illusions are very real devices. They're not presented with ill motive, but those who "see" are in fact deceived. So just because you see something with your physical sensory systems, doesn't mean its dependable.

 

So we meet with death at some point. We know that the bones and limbs decay. But the life of a human being is indeed another matter altogether.

Edited June 7, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Raider5678]

I'm afraid to get into this disscussion, but I guess I will. A creates B. B creates B. Which sounds more logical? Of course, logic falls apart in philosophy.

[Strange]

I'm afraid to get into this disscussion, but I guess I will. A creates B. B creates B. Which sounds more logical?

 

Of course, that implies something was created in the first place. There is no evidence for that.

 

 

Of course, logic falls apart in philosophy.

 

The definition of logic is part of philosophy. Philosophy is (should be) about the rigorous application of logic to analyse questions.

[Memammal]

So we meet with death at some point. We know that the bones and limbs decay. But the life of a human being is indeed another matter altogether.

I noticed that you have been trying to get into (hijacking?) this conversation in an attempt to discuss heavens and the likes. Don't you think that you are perhaps steering this thread off topic? Like the above statement and particularly the last part thereof which you put forward as fact. What would be the relevance and why would the life of a human be another matter? Opposed to what?

[Raider5678]

I noticed that you have been trying to get into (hijacking?) this conversation in an attempt to discuss heavens and the likes. Don't you think that you are perhaps steering this thread off topic? Like the above statement and particularly the last part thereof which you put forward as fact. What would be the relevance and why would the life of a human be another matter? Opposed to what?

If you read the thread you can see it slowly transitions so that what he says isnt hijacking, but replying to what other people have said.

[Memammal]

@ Raider5678: I am neither judge or jury, but i.m.o. the main contributors have so far stuck to what has become mostly a metaphysical debate. Yes, admittedly some of them have gone a bit array in order to elaborate on- or substantiate their points of view and some have even wandered awkwardly close to pseudoscience, but mostly with caution, acknowledgement and by admitting that it was their personal point of view. Religion and spirituality form part of metaphysics so in that sense there is nothing wrong to incorporate it in a philosophical manner if it would add value to the thread. What concerns me though is the way that B. John Jones has made two speculative statements in a unambiguous and factual manner. He wrote "there are several heavens" and "But the life of a human being is indeed another matter altogether" that are both unfounded and unscientific.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Memammal

[B. John Jones]

I noticed that you have been trying to get into (hijacking?) this conversation in an attempt to discuss heavens and the likes. Don't you think that you are perhaps steering this thread off topic? Like the above statement and particularly the last part thereof which you put forward as fact. What would be the relevance and why would the life of a human be another matter? Opposed to what?

 

The notion of "universe" is a latin notion. Before Rome it was referred to as the "heavens," being several, which answers the OP's question, at least where people aren't close-minded to the ancients.

[Phi for All]

 

The notion of "universe" is a latin notion. Before Rome it was referred to as the "heavens," being several, which answers the OP's question, at least where people aren't close-minded to the ancients.

 

It's not being close-minded to acknowledge that the Romans were less ignorant than "the ancients".

[tar]

B John Jones,

 

But do you figure the various heavens are populated by gods that transcend reality, or is the universe populated by other real entities like us and grains of sand and helium atoms and suns and such entities that are available for study to everybody in the waking world...or are your heavens populated by imaginary beings that can exist fully in your mind and have no bearing on any model of the place I may be able to construct in my mind?

 

Regards, TAR

[disarray]

I don't think that most people care about whether, from a scientific standpoint, there are other universes: Not many people are holding their breath until the next article about the possibility of the existence of a multiverse comes out in Scientific American.

 

However, from a religious standpoint, if we accept the original poster's assumption that the universe was created, I would suggest that there may be an element of sibling rivalry (syndrome) involved, in the sense that people may have, as per Freud, an innate tendency to want to be their creator's (God's) sole object of affection and center of attention as well the sole object of affection (as a group) and center of attention of their own creator parents (as individuals), and later the sole object of affection and center of attention of their romantic partner. Hence the widespread tendency for religion's to claim that they alone have the attributes that enable them to be saved; hence the tendency for religions to fight with each other; hence the tendency of religious groups to claim that they alone are God's chosen people (aka favorite people); and hence, I would also suggest, the tendency for people to resist the concept that God might have created other universes.

 

Even infants compete for parental attention, and just about everyone, I suspect, has narcissistic tendencies that lead them to want to be the center of attention, and to be the only person who is loved (even if it is just by their romantic partner).

 

Much like our parents, God typically provides people with similar things such as forgiveness, discipline, unconditional love. Often it seems that, much as many people's parents, God sometimes seems to abandon us, to the point where we are told that we just have to have faith that we haven't been abandoned or that we are still loved. In any case, people don't, on some level of awareness, I suspect, like the idea that ours is not the only universe, much like people centuries ago did not like the idea that they were not the center of the universe.

 

Deism proposes that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock so that it would run on its own, and then just walked off. The universe seems forlorn and abandoned enough as it is, without people proposing that God could be busy elsewhere creating (or perhaps tending) other universes.

Edited June 8, 2016 by disarray

[tar]

disarray,

 

Granted.

 

But this universe is my universe. I don't care if I am not its only child. It is still my parent, still the only thing I am in and of. That it is your universe too, does not make me jealous...it just makes us brothers.

 

Regards TAR

In this it makes no sense to think that one can only reach the father through Christ...we all have equal access already to the universe.

And similarly it makes no sense to figure a scientist has more access to reality than a layman. We have equal access to the universe already.

[B. John Jones]

 

It's not being close-minded to acknowledge that the Romans were less ignorant than "the ancients".

 

In some areas, excluding ancient wisdom, the Romans were indeed less ignorant. In areas that relate to eternity and even perhaps infinity, they might very well have been more ignorant. You make a very blanket statement.

Were the American colonists more civilized than the Africans whom they "enslaved?" In many areas, yes. In many areas, no.

B John Jones,

 

But do you figure the various heavens are populated by gods that transcend reality, or is the universe populated by other real entities like us and grains of sand and helium atoms and suns and such entities that are available for study to everybody in the waking world...or are your heavens populated by imaginary beings that can exist fully in your mind and have no bearing on any model of the place I may be able to construct in my mind?

 

Regards, TAR

None of the above. The heavens are inhabited by one God, who is as real, and as much a part of nature, as your mind and limbs and where you place your feet, and the things in your local environment. They're inhabited by angels and demons, at war for the Kingdom of God, comprised of souls of men, women and children. Satan and his own have nothing to gain or lose. They're bent on destruction, for they themselves are assigned to be being (sic) destroyed for eternity.

Edited June 8, 2016 by B. John Jones

[tar]

B John Jones,

 

You are talking figurative stuff. Not literal stuff. You are speaking of such figurative stuff as if it is literal. You do not know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 8, 2016 by tar

[B. John Jones]

B John Jones,

 

You are talking figurative stuff. Not literal stuff. You are speaking of such figurative stuff as if it is literal. You do not know the difference between the waking world and the dream world.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I awake to a real world, with real problems, and real answers--physical questions with physical answers from a physical God.

[tar]

B. John Jones,

 

But we have not seen this physical God. We checked out the top of mount Olympus and there was nobody home. We flew through the clouds with cameras and other sensors and recorders and did not find an entity there, of the characteristics you suggest. If heaven is not a real place, it must be a figurative place. If it was a literal place you could get there by going to its physical location. The evidence we have thus far collected suggest that an anthropomorphic god is more likely a projection of our own consciousness upon the universe, than an actual consciousness projecting the universe in its minds eye. That is, if literally true, we could find, in the waking world evidence that would satisfy us both of such an entity. Giving that you have no such evidence, I think it more likely you made the guy up.

 

Regards, TAR

That is you are taking myths and legends and stories of old, as literally true when they were meant as stories.

One thing standing for another, in the manner humans have of internalizing the external world and making sense of it.

Edited June 9, 2016 by tar

[disarray]

@tar

At no point did I suggest that sibling rivalry existed between people in terms of our universe (though there is, it seems, quite a bit of rivalry regarding the question as to who created and rules the universe), rather I clearly stated, with reference to Deism, that many people would not like the idea of God creating other universes.

 

You keep stating that scientists have no better access to the reality of the universe than a layperson for some reason which I can't comprehend. Your claim really does not say much unless one qualifies it. Sure, even a frog can look at the stars just as a layperson or scientist can and access the experience of that reality in the same way, but an astrophysicist, for example, has a better understanding of stars in terms of information that can be related in language, e.g., knowledge of the Big Bang (which no one has seen anymore than anyone has seen Zeus). What can be said in symbolic form (e.g., math and language) is a crucial difference, and is often said to be a substantial if not categorical difference between the mentality of humans and creatures such as frogs. Similarly, the average astrophysicist has far, far more organized linguistic and mathematical information about the 'reality' of stars as the average layperson. As for emotion, a chimp can look at the stars and perhaps feel some sort of emotions just as we do.

 

Perhaps you have some sort of special definition of "reality" that you are using when you suggest that everyone has the same or as much access to it, but in any case, your claim seems as pointlessly off the cuff as saying that a geologist has no better understanding of rocks than a layperson, or a dentist no better understanding of teeth than a layperson.

 

You also state that "The evidence we have thus far collected suggest that an anthropomorphic god is more likely a projection of our own consciousness upon the universe, than an actual consciousness projecting the universe in its minds eye." So what do you consider to be acceptable "evidence." The fact that cultures tend to project Gods that reflect the attributes of their culture does indeed suggest to a psychologist such as Freud that God(s) may be a projection of our own consciousness, but that is not exactly scientific evidence, and such an comment on Freud's part does not rule out the possibility that any of these Gods actually exists. I would agree that we have no scientific evidence one way or the other that the universe is the projection of some consciousness projecting the universe in its mind's eye (aka a God)....but that does not mean that such a consciousness/God does not exist. Indeed, given that you repeatedly claim 'that a scientist's view of the universe is never any better than a layperson's, I would remind you that laypersons (i.e., nonscientists) throughout history have claimed that they have had intuitions, visions, voices, premonitions, revelations, and other sorts of "evidence" relating to the existence of such a transcendental consciousness. In short, you now seem to be saying that a scientists (e.g., psychologist, anthropologist) access to the reality of the universe is better than that of a clergyman.

 

You also state that the old myths and stories should not be taken "as literally true when they were meant as stories." Again, how do we know that all of them are not true..given that, as you say, everyone has equal access to Reality? And who says that the cultures who had such stories did not mean that they were literally true...if anything, I would suggest that the opposite is true, that is, in the majority of cases, people from various cultures actually believed that such stories were true, and meant for them to be taken literally.

Edited June 9, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

@ B. John Jones:

 

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Allow me to give you a quick tutorial on belief, knowledge and truth by quoting from these sources:

 

It is interesting how often and freely we use these three elements of thought processing and presume that what we are expressing is being legitimately represented. Beliefs are readily interpreted as knowledge, and knowledge is often characterized as being true to lend it weight. However, for the purposes of this discussion let's consider some definitions for these terms so that we can distinguish how these elements are actually used. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief)

 

Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

 

Truth simply represents the opposite of deception. Although it is often used as a more emphatic way of expressing what we consider to be a "fact", it is irrelevant in that context beyond establishing that the information being presented or interpreted is not the product of deceit. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

 

So w.r.t. your references to:

The heavens are inhabited by one God, who is as real, and as much a part of nature, as your mind and limbs and where you place your feet, and the things in your local environment. They're inhabited by angels and demons, at war for the Kingdom of God, comprised of souls of men, women and children. Satan and his own have nothing to gain or lose. They're bent on destruction, for they themselves are assigned to be being (sic) destroyed for eternity.

and

...from a physical God.

 

The above statements evidently fail to meet the criteria in order to qualify as either knowledge or truth. So it is a belief, or alternatively the opposite of the truth which is a deception? Or perhaps we can settle on a delusion:

 

A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion)

Edited June 9, 2016 by Memammal

[tar]

Disarray,

 

I stated equal access, not equality of knowledge. Like we all, with a license have equal access to the public roads, even though we might have different vehicals or be better drivers or have explored more routes than another or have different amounts of funds for gas and tolls and parking.

The scene in the telescope is the same for a child or an astrophyicist . What it means to the one or the other is what differs. The scientist builds a different model of the world in her mind than does the layperson. The mailman has a different model of the neighborhood built in his mind than does the school bus driver, than does the guy who drives the same route to work every day. But the three have equal access to reality.

 

It is particularly hard to know what another person considers literal and figurative, Even today it is hard to know who takes god literally and who takes their god figuratively and what the combination is between belief in the model and belief in the thing as it is, when it comes to the stars. Some, when they think of spacetime see a formula. Some see that parabolic conical representation of the universe. Some just look up at the starry sky on a clear night in the mountains. Others see balls on rubber sheets, or galaxies as atoms in some huge molecule, or perhaps a foam with the galaxies the soap and the voids the air bubbles between.

 

We all, with all our senses, and the liberty to move around and read have the same access to reality as any other human with the same senses and brain, body and heart.

 

Regards TAR

there is not a one of us who transcends reality

not and remains in the waking world

only in the mind, only in dream world can one of us reside in a place where the other has less access

Edited June 9, 2016 by tar

[B. John Jones]

 

I don't think that most people care about whether, from a scientific standpoint, there are other universes: Not many people are holding their breath until the next article about the possibility of the existence of a multiverse comes out in Scientific American.

 

However, from a religious standpoint, if we accept the original poster's assumption that the universe was created, I would suggest that there may be an element of sibling rivalry (syndrome) involved, in the sense that people may have, as per Freud, an innate tendency to want to be their creator's (God's) sole object of affection and center of attention as well the sole object of affection (as a group) and center of attention of their own creator parents (as individuals), and later the sole object of affection and center of attention of their romantic partner. Hence the widespread tendency for religion's to claim that they alone have the attributes that enable them to be saved; hence the tendency for religions to fight with each other; hence the tendency of religious groups to claim that they alone are God's chosen people (aka favorite people); and hence, I would also suggest, the tendency for people to resist the concept that God might have created other universes.

 

Even infants compete for parental attention, and just about everyone, I suspect, has narcissistic tendencies that lead them to want to be the center of attention, and to be the only person who is loved (even if it is just by their romantic partner).

 

Much like our parents, God typically provides people with similar things such as forgiveness, discipline, unconditional love. Often it seems that, much as many people's parents, God sometimes seems to abandon us, to the point where we are told that we just have to have faith that we haven't been abandoned or that we are still loved. In any case, people don't, on some level of awareness, I suspect, like the idea that ours is not the only universe, much like people centuries ago did not like the idea that they were not the center of the universe.

 

Deism proposes that God created the universe, wound it up like a clock so that it would run on its own, and then just walked off. The universe seems forlorn and abandoned enough as it is, without people proposing that God could be busy elsewhere creating (or perhaps tending) other universes.

 

Actually, according to the Christian faith, no human being has ever had any attribute ever enabling them, or is enabled to be saved. Christ himself, by taking their punishment, through one perfect act of obedience to his Eternal Father, emptying himself of deity, laying down his life as a friend, for his enemies, by his own goodness saves men, through their faith, and utter trust in him.

 

The God kind of faith, by the Christian definition, is not an attribute. It's physical matter. Christ said, that faith, if it is of a certain physical size (that of a mustard seed), can move this particular mountain (visible from the Temple in Jerusalem).

 

Which is why Christian faith is neither a religion, nor among them.

 

And no mature Christian would hope to be the only one whom God loves. Every mature Christian would be willing to die for any other man, woman or child, if their death would bring eternal good to the other.

 

And to the contrary, God is not busy creating universes, but building a city with his own hands, a city for his church: 1,400 miles cube (12 stories), according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

 

Quoted By Memammal: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief)

 

@ Memammal: Not always. Belief is not always a state of mind, nor is it always about something. Sometimes belief is a matter of trusting someone--a physical bond.

 

Quoted By Memammal: Truth simply represents the opposite of deception. Although it is often used as a more emphatic way of expressing what we consider to be a "fact", it is irrelevant in that context beyond establishing that the information being presented or interpreted is not the product of deceit. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

 

@ Memammal: Actually, truth came first. Deception is a distortion of the truth. "Fact" simply means that 2 or more agree that something is truth. Of course, they are often in error, misinterpreting error as "fact," having been deceived, or even sometimes willfully deceiving.

 

Quoted By Memammal: Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us. (www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/belief_knowledge_and_truth)

 

@ Memammal: Instead, knowledge is knowing something, or someone, truthfully.

[disarray]

@John Jones: Your comments are based on an interpretation of scripture, whether you think you are being a literalist or not. Your conviction that your interpretation is true is a matter of subjective faith, and, as such, I fail to see how your proselytizing comments are compatible with science forums in general, or this discussion in particular.

 

@tar: It seems that you are just stating the commonplace notion that all creatures live in this universe and experience it in their own way. Again, this is so obvious that I fail to see why it needs stating at all unless you are being something of a sentimentalist. And yes, we can not always know what people literally believe and what they don’t (even many scientists change their minds on Sunday mornings), though, as you state yourself, this does not mean that all knowledge is equal. I like Memammal’s definition of knowledge: “Knowledge is going to be more narrowly defined as that information for which we have either direct experience and/or data to confirm that it represents a, more or less, accurate interpretation of the world around us.”

 

So, I think that we can safely say, for example, that it is highly likely that the paradigm that we (e.g., scientists) have of our solar system now is preferable to the paradigm that, say, even the great scientist, Aristotle, had a couple of thousand years ago. Nevertheless, there are those, as I mentioned, who have had experiences that seem to transcend the sort of usual data collecting source of our five senses, and even scientists are not justified, by their own criteria of truth, for absolutely ruling out the possibility that such knowledge is ‘valid’, despite the fact that no paranormal claims (e.g., mind reading) have ever been verified in the laboratory.

 

The fact that God(s) appear to different cultures in different ways, and in ways that are congruent to the cultures in which they appear seems to be better explained (in terms of the above definition of knowledge) by claiming that they are, as you say, the projection of people in these different cultures, rather than claiming, as worshippers are wont to do, that God is the opposite of Proteus in that “he” willingly changes shape in order to reveal spiritual truth to people in a way that they will understand because the shape is compatible and congruent with their particular culture. Thus, an anthropologist might observe that monotheism is more predominant in desert regions owing to such factors as the mono-tony of the environment, and owing to the need for a ‘king’ to unite disparate wandering tribes (each of which had their own vague areas of land as well as their own dissimilar set of deities) under one all-encompassing God, while, on the other hand, a clergyman might claim, less convincingly imho, that monotheism is predominant in desert regions because the “one, true God” appeared early on in the cradle of early civilizations, which just happened to be, for the most part, one big desert.

 

In any case, people in general and scientists in particular aren't about to agree on the authenticity of various transcendental/religious claims in general, and the existence of God in particular. From a scientific or even, I dare say, "common sense" point of view, we have as of yet no way of determining whether or not there is some background consciousness who is busily at work guiding the universe or, on the other hand, just twiddling his thumbs behind the scenes, as James Joyce once remarked. So, rather than get involved in the mire of such a discussion, I, personally, just took the approach of examining the possible reasons that people feel compelled to ask the question in the first place as to whether or not the universe is alone.

Edited June 9, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

@ B. John Jones:

 

Again, many bold claims with zero substance. I agree with disarray's response to your post that this is not the appropriate forum for preaching your subjective and unfounded beliefs. That being said, I would still like to delve into some of your assertions:

 

Actually, according to the Christian faith, no human being has ever had any attribute ever enabling them, or is enabled to be saved. Christ himself, by taking their punishment, through one perfect act of obedience to his Eternal Father, emptying himself of deity, laying down his life as a friend, for his enemies, by his own goodness saves men, through their faith, and utter trust in him.

Note the word gymnastics. You first stated that no human being ever had any attribute ever enabling them to be saved, yet in the last sentence you specifically mentioned faith and trust as prerequisites. You are also implying that the fate of human beings is somewhere unsafe (I presume hell, from which they need to be saved from), that it is their punishment. Why- and for what are humans being punished? Are you referring to the act of original sin? So Christianity insists that all humans should live with this life-long fear, this judgement over their heads? Do you see how extremely toxic this religion is? Do you realise the potential psychological damage of just this one doctrine? Of course there is zero basis for this, absolutely zero. We know Biblical Adam & Eve were not the first humans. By the time they allegedly (according to scriptures) roamed this earth humans were long spread across the globe so there could not have been any physical way that they could have passed on this "sin" (genetically) to the entire human race. In what other way could this "sinful nature" (what a dubious and unscientific term) have been passed on? There is also no scientific foundation to reason that humans have unique attributes that set them apart from the rest of the fauna. There is no evidence in evolution that humanity acquired extraordinary abilities such as the ability to "sin", or having (immortal) souls that set them apart from other animals. Lastly, there was no mention of this in the fictional/mythical Eden punishment narrative, nor by Jesus himself. It was the apostle Paul (who never even met Jesus) who conjured up and preached this sick idea, not so?

 

The God kind of faith, by the Christian definition, is not an attribute. It's physical matter. Christ said, that faith, if it is of a certain physical size (that of a mustard seed), can move this particular mountain (visible from the Temple in Jerusalem).

Now that you mentioned it, I have never ever seen faith. Is it an unseen kind of physical matter? And a mustard seed of this stuff can move a mountain..? Something akin to pixie dust or the "force" perhaps? With respect, it just seems so absurd.

 

Which is why Christian faith is neither a religion, nor among them.

So because this invisible faith is a physical matter, it sets Christianity apart from other religions and their respective faiths? My head is spinning...

 

Every mature Christian would be willing to die for any other man, woman or child, if their death would bring eternal good to the other.

Do the others know that you are making this claim on their behalf? Anyway, I simply don't believe you, full stop.

 

And to the contrary, God is not busy creating universes, but building a city with his own hands, a city for his church: 1,400 miles cube (12 stories), according to the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

Lol, this one is kind of funny. So God took 6 days to create the entire cosmos but has spent the past approx. 2000 years (and counting) building this church with his hands..?

 

I now realise why you conveniently ignored my reference to: A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Memammal