Evolution and the Bible

General Forums Off-topic Chat
1

Throughout the scientific community, the theory of evolution is given credibility. However, in religious circles, the theory is left as non-sense; perhaps even a tool of the devil used to break down Christianity.

Is there a place where the two can meet? Both sides have their fanatics, but does the theory of evolution exclude belief in the Bible, does the Bible preach creationism, and does belief in the Bible exclude rational scientific methods?

The answer to all these questions seems to be no. Still, there are some problems with each position, in my opinion. First, does evolutionary theory discount Biblical doctrine? Initially we must ask why we want to make this sort of distinction. Is it because one is doctrine and one is science? Science itself can be doctrine, and what prevents doctrine from being scientific? Both, on some level are belief systems, and both on some level assert absolute truth. It would seem then, the two are not so different. Now, of course most doctrine is not put through so much testing as scientific theories, and thus tend to lean more toward belief than solid evidence. However, the similarities are hard to ignore, and those who do so ignore fundamental human reasoning.

So if we espouse biblical doctrine does not mutually exclude scietific theory, how do we find the common ground? Is it a matter of simply lining up the facts and deciding which ones to keep? One problem we run into is that most who believe the biblical doctrine, believe the Bible is infalible. And not just on one level, but all levels. So, if science proves one portion of the Bible incorrect, there is little reason to believe another portion is true. If we extend this to the point where we aren’t sure if one or the other is true, that is, places where science cannot expressly say it is in error, we still have a similar problem.

Namely, you cannot believe in part of the Bible and not others if there is no reason to discount the validity of some portion.

Does biblical doctrine force this type of problem in the matter of evolution? For Christians believing in the saving power of Jesus Christ, it most certainly does. We will assume the roll of a Christian who also believes in evolution, whether theistic or natural.

The Bible is quite clear as to the origins of life on our planet. God created it, end of story. What is not so clear, is how he created it. This may seem insignificant to the Christian, however, it makes all the difference. While it is not as clear as who created life, how life was created is not left un-mentioned in the Bible. It is my opinion that God did not use evolution to create the universe. This opinion is based not on creationistic sciences, but a careful study of the Bible, both in various translations and in its original languages. Thus, theistic evolution has this problem: can the opening chapters of the Bible be in error, and still allow the closing chapters to remain valid? The answer is no. Either we must believe all the Bible to be true, or none of it to be true.

This holds no significance for the scientific community. Only for the Christian who believes in Jesus and evolution does this problem arise. Does this mean that the creation position is weakened? No, it simply means the creationist approaches the real-world (as opposed to doctrine) data differently. The creationist, because of his beliefs, presupposes the invalidity of evolution and looks for another explaination. This is not a problem because the scientific community does it too.

The evolutionist interpret data with certain presuppositions as well. Indeed, all humans bring their background to whatever task they are currently completing. This is not invalid, just simply human nature. It is also human nature to supose that for any certain experiement or task that the presuppositions can be left at the door. This is invalid. Part of quantom mechanics is that you cannot observe something without fundamentally changing it.

So then, this is our common ground. The fact that each of us interprets data differently based on our training, beliefs, and every day practices, does not always make one view right and another wrong

(obviously some scientific laws are correct, while some doctrines are not. The point here is that both evolution are creationism are theories currently undergoing testing. The difference most often is that Christians believe they already have the truth and work backwards explaining it. Scientists work with what the explaination and try to arrive at the truth. Both are equaly valid).

This does not mean that we as humans should abandon reason or the scientific method. We should, however, abandon the hostility surrounding these issues. Can we not find a way to test our theories without petty name calling? Both sides need to keep in mind that nothing is yet proven. Each may think so on a certain point, but so far, all those points boil down to belief.

Ok, that was long. I hope you took the time to read through it all. I don’t really care about hijacking with this thread. Lets see where it takes us, so long as we all remain civil.

2

Bible is completely compatible with evolution. That being said, this will probably be locked.

3

Once more:

Scientific jargon:

Hypothesis: no proof, to be tested.

Theory: Heavily proven, however there may be areas in which the broad theory breaks down. (Note the however, this means that it is very possible to have a theory that hasn’t, and may never break down at all)

Law: Obselete. Most laws are less precise and correct that theories (eg: Newton’s laws of motion, which only work for very non-relativistic objects with any accuracy). Nothing is called a law anymore because it is usually refined.

Note: Theorys are usually only ever proven wrong in the details, which a more advanced theory predicts more correctly. They are still largely right even when they can be shown to fail.

Creationism has no proof and is NOT a scientific theory. No matter what some hicks may say.

Don’t equate modern evolutionary theory with creationism. They are not on the same playing field.

Please remember this the next time you say that the theory of relativity isn’t proven “'cause it’s a theory”. It has numerous concrete proofs from experiment and observation. The same goes for evolutionary theory.

End Rant

Alex

4

only if you intrepret the bible that way

… which is annoying

[I’d imagine if this thread doesn’t get turn into a war it will stay unlocked for several pages]

5

I wonder, ajc158, who was talking about realitivity and disproving it? Since we are being civil, I would ask you to provide proof of evolution instead of simply saying creation is wrong no matter what “hicks” say. We might as well say evolution is wrong no matter what the big bad scientists say. Both statements are equally valid without further proof.

NQ1, z3r0 d hits it right on the head. The interpretation of scripture is the basis for deriving meaning from that scripture. Several passages may lend themselves to interpretations other than the one I have briefly mentioned above. However, my interpretations, I hold to be correct. By correct I mean not only do I believe them to be true, but I believe them to hold up under scrutiny, including scientific analysis, and am willing to discuss the issues with you. I may or may not change your view of the issue, but I believe we will both be better for it.

Haha, lets make sure we don’t get this locked.

6

only if you intrepret the bible that way

… which is annoying

[/quote]

Could you elaborate? What exactly do you mean?

7

I agree with AJC158.
Don’t ever mix religion with science. They are totaly mutual exclusive and most of the times imcompatibel.

In religion the keyword is “believe” and “faith”. Both words means “to accept something to be true without further proof”. In that perspective, I found that religion’s main characteristic is indoctrination and it doesn’t correct itself, even in the light of inreputable scienctific findings. It does accept its defeat from time to time. Like the world is not flat… otherwise even the pope would not take up traveling. The earth is NOT the center of the universe. The theist agree on those scienctific findings but keep accepting the non-reality their religion teaches them. And that my friend is religion at its best.

So as the world is not flat and the earth is not the center of the universe thing, in due time the theist shall accept that the evolution theory (albeit with lot of flaws) is a reality of this existance.

Yes religion can coexist. One can be a theist, believe in Adam and Eve, but KNOW that man came to be through the evolutionairy proces.

Fact is: we share 96% of chromosomes with chimpasees and in the archeological archives, there were beings that were nor modern ape or modern man. Conclusion, we and the primates all must have a comon ancestor. But if you should believe in creationism as a requirement te get into heaven, then be my guest.

I find that religion is full of paradoxal definitions. Like the world “allmighty”
So I ask the theist, how far can God throw a stone, and can he still see it? If he can throw a stone outside his visual range, then he is limited in his ability thus he is not allmighty. If he manages to throw the stone pretty far, but still manages to see it, he obviously cannot throw the stone far enough, so there is a limition also.

Another example:
Given that existance is the word of God. Given that existance is something detectable by our senses, so we can measure them. How should we investigate the nature of existanse? By reading Genisis? Or through scientific measurements (in fact measuring God words)? And what if one method contradicts the other? Was the bible fallable or was the scientific method fallable?

But the main question was I believe: could creationism and evolution be a flavour of eachother. In this I say NO. That is because the Bible has its own answers for its own dataset without any indipendant reference.
I didn’t say creationism didn’t happen, because I have no prove one or the other to say it didn’t. I just can’t accept it to be a true statement. And being an atheist myself, my motto is: seeing is believing (most of the times that is).

Try to sell me something and tell me to have faith that the box contains many wonderful things. I’m sorry, I haven’t that much faith, I should open the box first to trust you.

8

Life was created and it evolves.

%<

9

“Life was created an it evolves”

That is backdooring if I ever saw one. Sneaking in creationism, don’t we?

The word “create” implies a conscious being giving lifeless form life.
I rather say:

life came to be thanks to a process that is inherit of the chemical and physical characteristics of such materials at that time and place it happened, and from there it evolves.

10

watch haroon yahya’s DVDs on the theory of evolution and you’ll be convinced with scientific facts rather than religous facts that theory of evolution is not true…

go here for a quick article http://www.hyahya.org/articles/unique_deception_evolution.php

11

That’s even more wacko than the irreductible complexity BS.

Martin

12

Here’s a reply to Blendermax from the other topic.

You are correct that the Bible allows for interpretations. The NT writers interpreted their scriptures in a way that leaves us shaking our heads, yet we call their commentaries scripture as well. So where do we draw the line? Where does valid interpretations end and heresy begin? Indeed, this is a very fine line. Another discussion could be started on this point. Suffice to say for now that the line between interpretation and heresy is Christ.

How do we apply this to evolution? We look to Christ and what the Bible says his role in creation was. The Bible, refering to Christ, says that all things were created by him, and nothing was made apart from him. Ok. We’ll assume Christ and God to be one under the doctrine of the trinity. So, does the Bible have anything to say about how he created the world?

Exodus 20.11 clearly tells us God created everything in six days. So now we have a few things to look at. First, the thousand years argument. Anytime scripture is interpreted, the context must also be examined. This is true of anything. You could, of course, edit this post to make it say almost anything. I’m sure someone could quote me and make it look like I espouse eating babies. Without context, meaning crumbles. What then is the context of 1 Peter 3.8? Peter’s audience here is wondering why it is taking Christ so long to return. Peter responds by simply saying God’s time is not like our time. Ok, does this speak one way or the other about how long it took God to create the earth? No, but maybe we can make the inference that it could have taken a long time.

Here is the hole: Never in the OT is the Hebrew word for day used in a manner denoting extented lengths of time. It means one literal 24-hour period. The reason I cannot believe God used evolution to create the world is because I believe that to be a clear deception. Not in the natural evidence, but in the scriptural. God, above deception, would not use one word in a certain place, when in fact what he really meant was this other word. While God may not measure the passing of time as we do, he certainly understands how we measure the passing of time and in communicating with us uses terminology we understand.

Now, if we discount this, and believe that God really did use millions of years, instead of 6 days, to created the world, he is obviously decieving us. If he is lying to us about this, an issue that doesn’t matter so much, what else is he lying to us about? Jesus and the cross? The existance of heaven? If we can’t trust him on the small issues, how can we trust him on the ones that really matter?

13

What then is the context of 1 Peter 3.8? Peter’s audience here is wondering why it is taking Christ so long to return. Peter responds by simply saying God’s time is not like our time. Ok, does this speak one way or the other about how long it took God to create the earth? No, but maybe we can make the inference that it could have taken a long time.

That, in my opinion, is absolute crap. It probably wasn’t the wisest choice of words to say ‘days’ if it wasn’t days. Furthur, what was ‘God’ thinking when he decided that his time would be different than ours? By not giving us the ability to understand, we have to trust him. More importantly, we have to trust that he’s even there. In order for that to happen, we either have to follow it blindly, or have some proof.

Who is ‘God’ to tell me to just believe when he hasn’t given me a scrap of believable evidence? Is the definition of believable reletive? Yes. But if god is as powerful and as all knowing as he claims to be, I expect some results!

How many here have actually read all the way through the bible and taken the time to consider its possible meanings? How many people here have found another person who has done the same and found that you both have derived the exact same meaning from it? I, for one, have not. Nor do I care to. It’s too long, too boring, and too damn hard to figure out whats going on.

Evolution is far easier to understand. Plus, it doesn’t require you to believe that you’re a sinner. It allows you to live by your own code of ethics (sort-of) and doesn’t tell you what to do or how you should act. This, to say the least, is far more attractive than a set of rules, morals or whatever the hell you want to call them.

If there is a god (and I’m not so sure there is anymore) I really wouldn’t consider him the smartest of sorts. For one, his ‘marketing’ is all wrong. I figure that if he had based his following in fact instead of faith, most of the problems associated with religion wouldn’t occur. Everyone involved in religion thinks that if they believe it, it must be true. The way I look at it, if it makes you feel better, thats not all bad. Sometimes when my life is turning for the worst, I like to pray. Not because it will fix anything, but because it makes me feel better. Personally, I think its all in what you believe.

The thing that bothers me the most is knowing that whether you be muslim, christian or hindu, they all think they’ve got it figured out (so to speak). Thats not to say that they have all the answers. But they’ve all got something that makes them feel like they’ve got a purpose. Moreover, they all feel like they’re right.

Me? I need to find purpose in something a little more solid. Something that I can look at and see it’s value. God(s) don’t do that for me. And if there is a god, I’m not too fond of him.

–atom

14

toontje:

life came to be thanks to a process that is inherit of the chemical and physical characteristics of such materials at that time and place it happened, and from there it evolves.

Ok, so the the physics and the time were created and evolved to a time where life itself evolved.

%<

15

There is no room for resolution between “Creationists” and “Evolutionists” because both of them are equally and stubbornly religious in their own way… ways that are polar-opposites of one another to a degree that they essentially feed off one another.

Both of them are dead-set determined that they are “right” and that everyone else is “wrong,” and never the twain shall meet. Their pieces of turf are zealously defended, and pretty soon you realize that it’s best to give-up trying.

If you are convinced that “Genesis 1 of the King James Version of the Bible is The Holy Writ and God Said It I Believe It That Settles It” … then, well, “there you are.”

Likewise, if you choose to interpret The Origin of Species as, in effect, another “Bible,” then … well, “there you are.” (I personally believe that Darwin himself didn’t stretch his point nearly as far as you did, but that’s just me.)

Both camps have, above all, the fundamental and overarching need to be “right.” To have all of the Answers. To reduce a universe of uncertainty to a handful of “irrefutable ‘facts.’” They also both have a zealous need to “defend their position against any and all comers.” They’re positively standing around, looking for a fight. Both of them believe, without the slightest question or doubt, that they “have it all figured out.” I think that people like that have a tremendous psychological need for that sort of thing.

Myself, I prefer a universe of uncertainty. I rather enjoy not-knowing. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest to feel that the world that surrounds me is a great mystery and that I am simply a tiny, tiny part of it. Makes me very glad to just be here, for however-long my little length of time may turn out to be, and to see as much of it as I can until … and then … well, I don’t know that answer, either!

Can’t say that I honestly believe that whoever or whatever caused this marvelous place to be as it is, is really standing there somewhere off-screen, counting the exact number of times that I screw-up and waiting either to “forgive” me or to “condemn” me for all of that. Can’t say that I honestly believe that I’ll get a hundred bezillion years of hellfire in return for, at most, seventy-odd years of screw-ups … or that I’ll have an equally long time to practice my singing in a world where gold is used as paving stones, reminding the world’s greatest narcissist just how terrific he is … but surprises abound. Maybe I’ll just have to figure out a way to pack my asbestos bunny-suit when the time comes… Maybe I’ll just pay for my impertinence by never having to pay a fuel-bill for the rest of eternity, but I just can’t cotton to structuring my precious lifetime around either one of these notions. I’ll just go on wondering.

16

Ok.

Turrin:
It was an example of my past experience.

sundialsvx4:
Darwin is outdate, hence my use of the phrase “modern evolutionary theory”. His work is not entirely wrong, but it mainly pushed thinking in the right direction. Further work on the subject has refined and modified his initial, simple concepts based on a few observations, into a science in which evolutionary changes can be traced and possible future changes due to environmental pressures predicted. No scientist claims to hold to the letter of “The Origin of the Species”, as more advanced investigationsa and discoveries have surpassed it.

That is the difference. In 2000yrs you will not see any scientists holding blindly onto texts published up to now. They might provide the basis for work, but they will never be the final solution.

the ability to change our viewpoint. That is what science gives us. It is not to be spurned.

The only situation in which scientists are stubborn is when faced with a new (or old) hypothesis for which there is no solid fact. wherther it be multiple universes or creationism, until these ideas have a shred of rigorous proof to back them up they will be treated with reservation. In the case where the proof continues not to come for many many years (when surely something should be found) while the evidence to the contrary mounts up, there is more resistance, verging on hostility.

To me that seems understandable…

Alex

17

The key word here is “believe”.

Theist always ask if I don’t believe in God, what do I believe in? Well, I believe that at ultimaly everyone is accountable for his own actions. But that is not fact, just something I believe.

We have to view the bible by its mythological, intrepeted, cultural and political contamination. If you know the story of Baccus the God of wine, you’ll see a striking resemblance with the life of Christ, being able to change water into wine, his purpose was also to free man from suffering, he also performed miracles like raising the dead and healing, and at the end was brutaly executed. Well, I think where the Greek evangelist got their insperations from. And so there is so much contamination in the Bible that the stories of the Grimm brothers has more facts than the bible.

And it is a bad day to start intrepeting the Bible. If Peter says that Gods time is other than our time, he is just BS-ing. How does he know that for a fact without any measurements. And if in Genesis says that everything happened in 6 days, they mean 6 earth days, not 6 Klingon or Vulcan or celestial days. It is as if you are discussing higher mathematics with a dumb person, and he says 1+1=3.653 and you no it is 2, then he says yes you are right, but the answer in my intrepetation will amount to 2. Anybody can say one flew over the coockoo’s nest?

Even scientist use the word believe too often: like they believe that the string theory leads to the existance of extra dimensional membranes. Do you believe that, or do you think it is so?

The evolution theory cannot explain for me why in the past it was possible for a bacteria turn into an insect, a monkey into a man, but these you don’t see a cacroach evolve to a horse or something (to place it crudely).
You only see a diversification of species (more types of ants, more types of ducks), not a vertical promotion (primitive fish turning into amfibia, primates into humans).

Maybe the process is to slow to witness, but the archeological records don’t show that.

But that notwithstand, I think that evolution theory stands on solid grounds.

Many theist use the fact that something cannot be explained, as the proof of the existance of god or whatever. And they keep putting that in front of whatever discovery there is. The fact that something cannot be explained is because it couldn’t be detected/ measured properly (which results in a lack of data) and an fresh understanding of the unknown. But that in itself is proof of nothing, just that we aren’t there yet. Just like Einstein give a better understanding of how gravity works (relativety), making Newtons finding obselete/ errourness. Even Newton made the error of contributing the stability of the planetary system as an act of God. That is just another stupid situation where someone prove the existance of God through lack of data and understanding, even if his name is the great Isaac Newton.

So, emperically, all that was thought of as an act of God was debunked one by one through scientific findings, and creationism is next, no mather what Georhe W Bush thinks and believe.

18

Well to comeback again…
I’ve glanced http://www.hyahya.org/articles/unique_deception_evolution.php

I heard also that for many people religion give the answers they need. Not true, you are given the answers before the problem is know (that is IF the problem is revealed). I find religion raising more question than answers.
Where did God come from? Who or what created God?
Why did God create if he is almighty already? Why and when did he create heaven, why and when did he create the angels, why did he create Satan?
Why does he destroys man that doesn’t please him, but he let Satan of the hook? Why does it seem that he hasn’t power over certain things although he is almighty? Why does he seek an illiterate maiden to bear his son? Why not some influencial right away? Why doesn’t he speak to a crowd, but only whispers in ears of so called prophets? Why does he appear only in clouds and tree barks and the vomit of a dog, and not in more modern means of communication? Why did he gave mankind a brain where it is clearly a sin to use it? Why so many contradictory religions? Why did it take millions of lives and thousands of bombs to get to Hitler, but babies are dying in burning buildings, why does he speak of love where he obviously doesn’t let a chance go by to obliterate mankind? Why did the story end? Why isn’t the bible written anymore? Why Why why?

I tell you why, if there is no answer, probaly it doesn’t exsist. End of story

19

I’ve glanced http://www.hyahya.org/articles/unique_deception_evolution.php

That article is so full of strawmen it is actually painful to read.

Following quotes are from the article:

If evolutionists are sincere in these claims of theirs, then according to those claims there should be no reason why this so-called evolution should not happen again

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, that is called abiogenesis. Evolution is happening right now, look at bacterial resistance, or one of the many other examples.

It will be absolutely out of the question for a single living cell to emerge spontaneously from there.

Very unlikely, yes, but even abiogenesis doesn’t require this to happen. All you need are self replicating patterns, evolution can take it from there.

Since evolutionists believe in this impossibility, then let them take a suitable amount of mud and wait for it to construct palaces, produce the latest model Jaguar, or build bridges. Let them wait for that mud to produce, spontaneously, first a single cell, then amoeba, fish, lizards, horses, apes and finally human beings.

Woah, evolution isnt a lne of better and better organisms, it is massively parallel. Todays cells have been evolving for billions of years, they are very complex now.

Interestingly, they have thus far ignored any evidence for evolution, seeming to believe that evolution is a faith, and a story.

Oh, and the rest just says I am going to hell. Great.

Go to www.talkorigins.org if you want to learn more, it has a lot of information, and it is all backed by sources, not just assertions and assumptions. In other words, it is scientific.

To end now, evolution has been observed, it is observed, it has evidence that it has happened in the past, is the logical conclusion from an imperfect set of self replicators in a limited environment, can be simulated, and says nothing about how life began.

Ian

20

Not locked. Pleasant surprise. Most religious threads are destroyed these days.

Well, I didn’t read over the entire thread, to tell the truth, but I’d like to say a few things.

First, there are two forms of revelation: special and natural. Nature tells us about God (that is to say, Truth) and so does Scripture. Each of these requires interpretation in the forms of either science or exegesis. Each is a human endeavour and prone to error. Each changes over time. Each has its strict adherents to one form of interpretation that usually die out over time.

The charge is often leveled that science changes but religion doesn’t and therefore is more fallible. I have already stated that religion (or at least, Christianity) changes in some way but I haven’t demonstrated that yet. Interpretation changes. Despite what some Christians will say, Christians have not always known that the Earth was round. Popular belief was that it was flat. When the tides turned against that theory, Christians held to it, citing verses that mentioned the “four corners of the Earth.” No rational Christian takes that literally as it opposes common knowledge. So in such a way, Christianity has changed. (I do not, however, consider that a tenet of Christianity, but merely cite it because critics so frequently like to find the flaws in the Christian faith by bringing up obscure references that are easily explained within context.)

Toontje:

Where did God come from? Who or what created God?

God comes from a timeless place (non-physical.) Not being bound by time, the act of being created is impossible. There can be no beginning without time. The question is self-defeating because you use the term God, which already answers it.

Why did God create if he is almighty already?

What are you asking? He created because he wanted to, as far as we know. He wants beings to share his love. An almighty being has the option to create and with there being no existing people, this was his only option.

Why and when did he create heaven, why and when did he create the angels, why did he create Satan?

“When” is a ridiculous question. What does that have to do with anything? If they are created before the material world, then there is no time, so there is no when. If it helps, I can say 80 billion years ago. As to why . . .heaven is God’s dwelling in communion with people an angels. The “why?” should be obvioius. The angels are created beings like men, apparently with free choice, but, apparently, existing on another realm of reality. He created them to love and do be his agents, we can assume. Why Satan? To enact his great plan, one could say. People find this a bit trite. If you are one of them, PM me and I’ll explain.

Why does he destroys man that doesn’t please him, but he let Satan of the hook?

Quite the opposite. All men have a chance for repentence. What Satan has done is beyond forgiveness. He is doomed, we are all free to choose.

Why does it seem that he hasn’t power over certain things although he is almighty?

“Seem” is subjective. Your question instead should be “Why do I think God lacks some power?” When you can tell me that, I’ll give you an answer. But this is a question addressed to yourself.

Why does he seek an illiterate maiden to bear his son? Why not some influencial right away?

Well, first of all, the Bible said she was pleasing to him, a godly woman. That should answer it right there. WHy not Hitler as his pa? He was famous. God has, as he says, no respect for your Earthly status.

Why doesn’t he speak to a crowd, but only whispers in ears of so called prophets?

Jesus spoke to a crowd. The Bible spoke to all humanity. What’s the problem? God speaks to everyone through conscience, nature, and that still small voice.

Why does he appear only in clouds and tree barks and the vomit of a dog, and not in more modern means of communication?

I don’t believe he does. Leave that to the fanatics.

Why did he gave mankind a brain where it is clearly a sin to use it?

Since when is it clearly a sin? He does say “Put all things to the test” “Let us reason together,” etc. God gave us reason. Anyone who thinks it is a sin is already not using their brain.

Why so many contradictory religions?

Why such a thirst for a god that doesn’t exist?

Why did it take millions of lives and thousands of bombs to get to Hitler, but babies are dying in burning buildings, why does he speak of love where he obviously doesn’t let a chance go by to obliterate mankind?

I pose to other questions: How much evil is attributable to mankind? There is enough food in the world, why isn’t everyone eating? Greed. There’s plently of land, why doesn’t everyone have a home? Greed. Why is there violence? The violence in mens hearts. Question 2: Why is there so much good too? Why should there be any good in a meaningless world?

Why did the story end? Why isn’t the bible written anymore?

Because “It is finished.” There is a perfect answer. You just don’t seem to be able to understand or accept it. Admit it, you have an emotional hangup, not a rational one.

tell you why, if there is no answer, probaly it doesn’t exsist. End of story

Then nothing exists, because NOTHING has all the answers. This is the most foolish statement I’ve ever heard.

Please PM me for some real discussion.