Adam, Eve, and incest

[Samael_Khan]

For me, i don't understand how certain nontheist can say that nothing can come from nothing, yet don't make the logical link then that if matter/energy was alone in existence before creation then it had to get the material for creation from somewhere. It couldn't make something out of nothing as nothing comes from nothing.

I actually say that "I do not know". To me, we are so limited in knowledge that any conclusion we reach regarding what caused the universe to be created is based on logic derived from ignorance, because human logic is only based on what we know at any given time. I think that any guess is equally as valid as possibilities until we are able to examine the topic.

My point in the above is to point out that certain theists say that concluding that God created the universe is derived from logic, yet if that is the case then they should logically follow through with that logic and say that everything is God if he existed before creation. But they stop short because of .....uh... reasons?

I fixed it.

In the Trinitarian formula, God isn't really alone.

That is a separate discussion. One which I don't think is comprehendible.

But either way, your question applies. To which one doesn't really have an answer.

Unless of course, it all flows from Him, whereby the act of detachment is the combustion and chaos.

Interesting point. But I think that there are two logical conclusions that follow: Either God made everything out of himself or there was something else, a material, which was eternal with him.

 

[Quiddity]

Interesting point. But I think that there are two logical conclusions that follow: Either God made everything out of himself or there was something else, a material, which was eternal with him.

I agree.

IF there was something else, that would certainly put a wrench in the Abrahamic position. But, really this question can be asked ad infinitum and the Aristotelean Thomistic position is that having "the buck stops here" is logical (properly understood). It's full potentiality, the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, etc. that is God.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree.

IF there was something else, that would certainly put a wrench in the Abrahamic position. But, really this question can be asked ad infinitum and the Aristotelean Thomistic position is that having "the buck stops here" is logical (properly understood). It's full potentiality, the uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, etc. that is God.

As far as I can tell, pantheism is the logical conclusion of the Abrahamic religions. I have read that Sufi's have come to this conclusion, that ultimately we must realize that we are all Allah. I think that people try to "stop the buck here" just because of belief, not logic.

 

[Scott C.]

So...

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with the intention that they were to reproduce and populate the entire world

But as there were only two of them, this would necessitate incest, in order to expand the population beyond the first generation of offspring which Adam and Eve would themselves produce:

The offspring of Adam and Eve would have to have children together, if they were to populate the world and produce a subsequent generation - this would mean brothers and sisters would have to have sex with each other...

And if you believe the biblical account, that is exactly what must have happened

That doesn't sound very wholesome and God-fearing to me

How do people who believe in a literal, biblical, Adam and Eve address this rather glaring issue of necessary incest?

Why would there be anything wrong with siblings having sex with each other when they are the only people on earth and God commands them to reproduce? You can't apply today's standard in a world with billions of people to the unique scenario of the first generation children of Adam and Eve. I mean even if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve or don't believe in God at all, this is hardly a "gotcha" for a Christian who does.

 

[Quiddity]

As far as I can tell, pantheism is the logical conclusion of the Abrahamic religions. I have read that Sufi's have come to this conclusion, that ultimately we must realize that we are all Allah. I think that people try to "stop the buck here" just because of belief, not logic.

That's been in vogue for some time now and it's an easy dismissal. In part, because most people that are really good at explaining the logic are Phd types and that isn't a copout or fallacy of authority, it really is a series of understanding terms and connecting a long line of dots. For example, the reason pantheism can't work is that it ultimately strips the material world of causal powers. God didn't just ignite and start it all, he also causes the ice cream to melt when left in the sun, or fungus that made your bread go bad. It ultimately makes it impossible to make a distinction between material and God. Therefore, the activity that we attribute to material objects must really be attributed to God........the famous "there is no separation from all that is and yourself".

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's been in vogue for some time now and it's an easy dismissal. In part, because most people that are really good at explaining the logic are Phd types and that isn't a copout or fallacy of authority, it really is a series of understanding terms and connecting a long line of dots. For example, the reason pantheism can't work is that it ultimately strips the material world of causal powers. God didn't just ignite and start it all, he also causes the ice cream to melt when left in the sun, or fungus that made your bread go bad. It ultimately makes it impossible to make a distinction between material and God. Therefore, the activity that we attribute to material objects must really be attributed to God........the famous "there is no separation from all that is and yourself".

Well, considering that we do not actually know what God is as we cannot examine him, for all we know, there is no difference between the material and God. Considering that we know that everything at their most miniscule is atoms, protons and other tiny stuff and energy, and those combine to make things of various forms and visibilities, I don't think it can be ruled out. I also bet that those guys with the Phds cannot explain how God can make something out of nothing. Where does the base material come from? And if this is the case then why is it not then logical for something to just pop into existence without a God, which is pretty much the same thing?

 

[Quiddity]

Well, considering that we do not actually know what God is as we cannot examine him, for all we know, there is no difference between the material and God. Considering that we know that everything at their most miniscule is atoms, protons and other tiny stuff and energy, and those combine to make things of various forms and visibilities, I don't think it can be ruled out. I also bet that those guys with the Phds cannot explain how God can make something out of nothing. Where does the base material come from? And if this is the case then why is it not then logical for something to just pop into existence without a God, which is pretty much the same thing?

The logic only gets you to the endpoint; not how it works. And by getting to the endpoint, it dissolves other possible propositions (like pantheism, polytheism, etc.). At that point, you can ask a million different questions to which most can't be answered. The only thing they do is make sure the logic is sound.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The logic only gets you to the endpoint; not how it works. And by getting to the endpoint, it dissolves other possible propositions (like pantheism, polytheism, etc.). At that point, you can ask a million different questions to which most can't be answered. The only thing they do is make sure the logic is sound.

So far, I do not see any logic to their end point. Could you point me to a video if possible? I still think that pantheism is the most logical conclusion.

 

[wellwisher]

So...

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with the intention that they were to reproduce and populate the entire world

But as there were only two of them, this would necessitate incest, in order to expand the population beyond the first generation of offspring which Adam and Eve would themselves produce:

The offspring of Adam and Eve would have to have children together, if they were to populate the world and produce a subsequent generation - this would mean brothers and sisters would have to have sex with each other...

And if you believe the biblical account, that is exactly what must have happened

That doesn't sound very wholesome and God-fearing to me

How do people who believe in a literal, biblical, Adam and Eve address this rather glaring issue of necessary incest?

Adam and Eve only had three son's, Cain, Abel and Seth. Before Seth was born there was only Cain and Abel. Cain was a tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel this symbolized farming superseding herding. This implies the start of civilization where humans begins to settle in one area instead of migrate with the herds.

After Cain kills Abel, God banishes Cain. Cain then laments to God, whomever shall come upon me shall kill me.

Genesis 4:14, NIV: "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'"

God gives Cain a symbol for protection.

The question becomes, who were these whomever that Cain was afraid of, if only Adam and Eve were left on the earth after Cain kills Abel? This hint tells us that there were other humanoids; pre-humans, present. These pre-humans were from the migrant ways of old, It appears they knew Abel since they would react in kind to Cain's murder of one of their own kind.

Adam and Eve symbolized a new type of human, that were more advanced than the pre-humans. The change was about a new human brain operating system, that first appears in Adam and then in Eve. This can occur independent of DNA since it has a connection to conscious learning.

Cain would go on and have children with pre-human women. These females were more natural and instinctive and had human DNA. They were attracted to the bling; talisman, of Cain. They did not yet have the new brain operating system, needed for sustained civilization. However, they could mate with Cain, due to shared human DNA.

The analogy is Einstein could mate with the cleaning lady and have children. However, she may not be able to fully relate to Albert in terms of his math and physics job. Their children would have the benefit of a coach in Albert who could then begin the process of the upgrade; civilization then starts to expand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Speaking as a non-Christian with some experience growing up with Christian rhetoric, the most common answer I see to this is that humans that existed close to Adam and Eve's time were more genetically perfect and that incest back then would cause less damage.

Which off course makes no sense at all, as the "damage" is caused by as severe lack of genetic variation. Siblings will, by definition, be very low on genetic variation. The very concept of being "more genetically perfect" is nonsensical drivel. It literally makes no sense at all in context of how genetics actually works.

The second most common answer I see is Bible non-literalism. This is a story and not a historical event.

That is at least a semi-rational stance, as it doesn't require the denial of obvious facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course genetic diversity wouldn't have been an issue back then.

Eum...... genetic diversity would by definition be an issue if the population consists of only 2 individuals.
In fact, genetic diversity becomes a very serious, extinction-level, issue once population size drops below 200...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

in my opinion, you can't be sure that God created A&E and noone else.
In my opinion, the Bible is as concise as possible and might have left out some other creation stories that are of no relevance for us.
Because of the flood.... all other lines of descent did not prevail, anyways...

You just moved the incest problem and severe lack of genetic diversity from genesis to the flood that never actually occurred.

Same problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there was incest, I think it was not similar problem as now, because they were not yet as corrupted as nowadays people are.

The problem with incest has to do with the lack of genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with "corruption" of any kind.

 

[74x12]

Eum...... genetic diversity would by definition be an issue if the population consists of only 2 individuals.
In fact, genetic diversity becomes a very serious, extinction-level, issue once population size drops below 200...

It's not an issue because assuming that God personally made Adam and Eve; then their genes can safely be assumed to be basically perfect. Therefore there could not be accumulation of harmful mutations yet. Which means there is no problem with genetic diversity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not an issue because assuming that God personally made Adam and Eve; then their genes can safely be assumed to be basically perfect.

This makes absolutely no sense and exposes a deep rooted ignorance concerning the subject matter.
There is no such thing as "perfect genes" - and the concept is especially nonsensical in context of genetic diversity.

When you have only 2 people, genetic diversity is by definition non-existing - regardless of how "perfect" their genes are (which is, again, a nonsensical notion even by itself).

Therefore there could not be accumulation of harmful mutations yet

This again is completely nonsensical in context of genetic diversity.

Which means there is no problem with genetic diversity.

It rather only means that you don't seem to be understanding what genetic diversity is all about and what the problem is if no such diversity exists............................. AT ALL.

 

[thomas t]

You just moved the incest problem and severe lack of genetic diversity from genesis to the flood that never actually occurred.

Same problem.

I think the flood occurred.

 

[Thief]

And if you believe the biblical account, that is exactly what must have happened

and who was Cain afraid of....?????having been exiled for the murder of his brother
and for what population was the city he built?
and having been banished from the garden to wander in the land of Nod
who was Cain's wife?

Man was created as a species.....Day Six
male and female
no names
no garden
no law
Go forth be frutiful, multiply and dominate all things

Day Seven...rest.....and nothing more would be created

THEN Chapter Two
which is NOT a retelling of Chapter One

Adam is a CHOSEN son of God

and that bit about .....formed of dust
is true

for Adam.....for me.....and you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the flood occurred.

Yes I know.

And I just told you that even if we bend over backwards and assume it did, then still the problem of genetic diversity remains.

But we've been over this in another thread concerning the flood specifically, where I pointed out that no species has this massive genetic bottleneck.

And your "explanation" was that your god fixed genetics through magic.

Off course, when one allows for magic to happen, anything becomes possible - including the impossible. Specifically the impossible, actually, since that is what magic/miracle working is: the impossible happening anyway.

Where "impossible" is that which can not happen according to the laws of nature.

 

[thomas t]

And I just told you that even if we bend over backwards and assume it did, then still the problem of genetic diversity remains.

yeah, we've been over it.
So let me provide some new examples from scripture:

Genetic diversity sometimes stems from God altering genetics after he created something:
According to the Bible, when God had finished making Adam, He took a rib from his back and replaced it by flesh, before you claim "faking the evidence"... let me assure you: this was only because he created the woman according to the Bible.
He just did not "fake the evidence" for no reason!
My stance here: if God changes genetics once - to replace a rib in this case - he might do so twice or more often... and this is how genetics change through divine interventions. This is my stance from what I read in the Bible at least.

But we've been over this in another thread concerning the flood specifically, where I pointed out that no species has this massive genetic bottleneck.

And your "explanation" was that your god fixed genetics through magic.

You called it magic. I call it God's limitless possibilities.

Off course, when one allows for magic to happen, anything becomes possible - including the impossible. Specifically the impossible, actually, since that is what magic/miracle working is: the impossible happening anyway.

Yeah and if you rule divine interventions out, you end up ruling out potential God(s). With no evidence at all.
If you come up with the claim that there are no miracles whatsoever going on in nature... the onus is on you to prove this claim, I think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genetic diversity sometimes stems from God altering geneitics after he created something:

Evidence?