welcome to the board ragnar,
1) Who is the creator of the universe?
the data suggests that there most likely was not one. this doesn't mean that there conclusively was not one. but it also does not mean that the probability split is equally 50/50 down the middle. parsimony and economy of explanation favour the idea that there was no creator of the universe. and if you look into scientific method, you will find that the rule of parsimony is an important feature in dealing with unfalsifiables, or un discoverables. of course, since no creator has shown itself yet, it seems like the mystery will continue on for us. us humans, who have been an extremely small fraction of life in the grand natural history of this planet.
as far as biological diversity is concerned, the evidence is overwhelming that god did not tinker with anything to get it as it is. however, if some god/alien scientist from another dimension did create the universe (and subsequent bio-diversity here on earth), it is pretty obvious that she/he/it would be more of a computer programmer than a blueprint engineer/designer.
2) Why are we here, where are we going?
we are here so that our genomes may survive, plain and simple. to look for a larger meaning to it all, may be fun and emotionally comforting, but there is simply no real evidence that would suggest that we should be looking farther than what we have already been observing for millenia.
we are the expression of our genes. we fit in the world so well, not because some god "designed" us, but because these computer programs are concerned with one thing: survival.
we are not going anywhere. if we are to understand this, we must understand evolution and see ourselves in the light of evolution as the animals that we are. evolution has no grand plan, no pinnacle. our ancestors will probably look and behave pretty differently from us a 100 000 years from now.
"we", doesn't really mean anything in light of evolution. "we" are not what's important. our genomes are what's important.
3) Why do we grow old and die?
technically? our cells stop rejuvinating/replicating themselves. the chemical factories stop producing, or are hijacked by other systems. either parts of us start to die, or the whole of us, or both.
but in the larger picture of natural cumulative selection, if it were not for death, there most likely would be no life on earth, or i should say, not much life diversity like we see it now. death, and birth, in nature, allow our genomes to mutate. genomes mutate whether we like it or not, but when the earth changes drastically, or even locally, certain mutations are better able to cope and help the organism (us) survive. if there were no death, then how would we adapt to the earth or other environmental pressures that arise? how would there be any biological diversity. i dare say that we would still be single celled organisms. or, more likely considering the amount of change our earth has gone through in the last 3 billion years, the long forgotten shadows of single celled organisms who could not mutate their code.
4) Will suffering ever end?
human suffering? not unless we end it ourselves. but frankly, i don't think we will ever completely end human suffering. we will continue to make life more comfortable and extended, but suffering will always be here.
the universe, and nature, if you take a careful look around, are not concerned in the slightest that we survive. nature is cold cruel and indifferent to whether we survive at all, which is why there is suffering in the first place.
with regards the other flora and fauna with whom we share a common ancestor? they will always suffer too. we (and other animals) cannot survive ourselves, without contributing to the suffering of other animals. from bacteria to broccoli: we kill to survive. it's a fact of life. to end suffering, would be to end life as the world has always known it, or experienced it.
5) Would you go to war against fellow beleivers?
no, that's preposterous. plus, i don't have any fellow believers, as they're all non-believers (negative). we really have nothing to be pissed about except for religious people who kill other people due to sheer hubris and ignorance.
but i am against violence that i can help. if it came down to pure survival, i would kill. but honestly, it's the 21st bleeding century. how many instances can you justify where you absolutely need to kill a fellow human (considering they all felt the same way)? when you really think about it, there are basically none, now that we are conscious, feeling, sentient apes. of course, it doesn't always work like this. still though, killing for ones individual survival is different than killing for ones tribe or country. i will never do that. it's a paleolithic and moronic way to behave considering who we have become. whether we are killing ourselves, or running around telling other people that god will be killing them, is primitive behavour.
6) What does Jesus' sacrafice mean to you?
what does the death of buddha mean to you? what does the lightning bolt of Zeus mean to you?
Jesus, if he existed, was some jewish apostate that liked to talk a lot about peace and love and the poor-man.
but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a god, or that any god exists. so his sacrifice means nothing to me at all.
the meme that the crazy bastard paul started that has spawned into xianity (of which it sounds you consider yourself a subscriber) means a lot to me, in a very negative way.
the abrahamic mono-faiths have played their part in the cultural evolution of our species, but we have arrived at the point where i think we would do well to cast them aside/down, to where they belong, and start really living.
best of luck in your journey,
TS
