The Problem of Incest

In Genesis the creation of Adam and Eve the first two humans is described, it says Eve is "the mother of all the living" Gen 3:20 (NIV) (i.e. All humans are descended from Eve). Now we come to the first problem in Gen 4:17 it describes Cain (Adam and Eves son) having intercourse with his wife, the only explanation for the sudden appearance of Cain's wife is that she is one of his sisters (or Eve). Even if this passage were not in the Bible the only possible way to populate the Earth with just two people is if someone has incest and intercourse with another member of the family (because there is only one family). Now if we skip a few chapters to Leviticus 18:6-21 God clearly forbids the act of incest "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. Lev 20:11-12 describes one of the punishments for committing incest as death and also describes it as "a perversion"”. Lev 20:17 forbids incest between brother and sister saying -"it is a disgrace."

This could be explained by saying that incest was allowed because all humans were 'pure'. This however is not true, if you look at it from a biological view point even if both the mother and farther are 'pure' it doesn't mean their offspring will be 'pure' because there is always a small chance of genetic mutation occurring. If you look at being 'pure' from a spiritual view point then again it is not true, in fact the first humans in the bible were committing sins and were just as impure then as humans are today. For example Adam and Eve commit the first sin by eating the apple in Gen 3:6, Cain murders his Brother in Gen 4:8 and as described above there must have been a lot of incest happening. So the argument that incest would have been allowed because humans were pure does not stand up.

Another possible explanation that again does not stand up is that Incest was allowed because God had not yet forbidden it. Even if God had not told humans that incest was wrong and sinful, God must still have held the view that it was wrong, yet God did not punish anyone, but we see an example of God punishing some one for sinning even before God has communicated that it is a sin in Gen 4:11 were Cain is punished for the murder of his brother. In Gen 4:8 Cain breaks the 5th commandment ("You shall not murder") (Ex 20:13) but God has not yet given this commandment but still punishes Cain. So it seems that God is inconsistent when it comes to punishing people.

There is a simple and logical way God could have populated the Earth while completely avoiding the problem of incest. If several humans had been created from the ground instead of just two then there would have been no need for incest to occur as there would be no need to have intercourse with a family member, now you would think that this solution would have occurred to an all-knowing God wouldn't you.

Paticcasamuppada

While I was reading some of my collage work about Buddhism, I came across the teachings of the Madhyamaka School which seems similar to my last proof. It is based on the teaching of Nagarjuna (the most famous Buddhist philosopher), and his concept of Sunyata (emptiness) which denies the belief in God and the soul and also takes into account the possibility of God always having existed which I admit, my second proof did not (any suggestions on this problem would be appreciated). I won't go into all the details as it is quite complex but here's a summary of part of the teaching.
There is nothing that exists in its own right- eternally and unchanging, what does exist does so in an inter-relationship so that everything is an effect. There is no uncaused cause that causes effects (i.e. God) because a cause would have to be uncaused to be a cause; it can't so it must be an effect because something that is uncaused is unconditioned and it cannot logically cause some-thing that is conditioned. Hence every thing is Paticcasamuppada (dependent Co-origination).

I recently read a criticism of this concept that argues that if everything is an effect and there can be no uncaused cause then logically this would mean that there is no starting point at which everything was created (because this would be an uncaused cause), this actually agrees with the Buddhist teaching "This cycle of continuity (Samsara) is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings is not to be perceived" - Buddha. It goes on to say "the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. This seems a bit strange because they didn't seem to think that God existing eternally is logically absurd.
also "(an) infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.

There are a lot of flaws in this statement firstly, the infinite effects will not all be happening simultaneously but over a period of time i.e. over infinity. Now the nature of infinity means that an infinite number of effects spread over an infinite period of time, the universe will not become full. It also wrongly states that there are things that can not be destroyed (I have no idea why this assumption would be made), one of the principle ideas behind Buddhism is that there is nothing that exists that does not change or last forever.

Proof of the non existence of God part 2

A number of people have responded to my proof, one of the arguments is as follows: "God is not limited to the same parameters that creation is confined to. For one, He is omnipresent, meaning He is everywhere at all times" and another response was" A big problem with this argument is that Allah (the creator of everything) does not in any way assume the shape or form of HIS (Allah's) creation. This means that Allah is not inside HIS (Allah's) own creation. How can somebody who creates something be in the realm of his own creation? "

The main arguments seem to be that God would not be part of or be inside God's own creation and that if God made the rules then surely God must be able to break the rules. These are both good points to make and at first seem to disprove my theory. However they make the assumption that God created the universe.

The next logical step therefore is to prove that God did not create everything:

For God to be the creator and originator of everything that exists, God must have created everything out of nothing (i.e. nothing existed before). By definition this would mean that nothing would have to exist. But if nothing existed then God also would not exist.