Why create just one man and one woman?

[bluegreenearth]

According to the "inspired word of God" (Genesis 2), the human population began with a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. However, after Adam was magically brought to life by God using a golem spell, it is implied that he was initially intended to live and work by himself in the garden of Eden. Apparently, Eve was subsequently created from Adam's rib as an afterthought when God realized that just one human being was probably insufficient to manage all the necessary gardening. Meanwhile, entire populations of animals and plants had been brought into existence, even before Eve came along to give Adam a hand with his chores. So, what was God's reasoning for creating just two humans in a world where other populations of living things presumably consisted of many individuals?

The first and most obvious apologetic is that God intended for Adam and Eve to produce more humans through sexual reproduction as the preferred mechanism for populating the world. The problem, though, is the "divinely inspired" text gives no indication that all the other forms of life also initially began as just one or two individuals who subsequently reproduced through an intended "natural" mechanism. This would be expected from a God that is depicted as being perfectly consistent. If it was the case that God instantaneously created numerous individuals within the plant and animal populations, then why not use the same strategy for the human population?

Maybe an explanation could be found by presuming the ratio of resources to humans in the garden of Eden was such that the ecology could only support a handful of people at a time. Of course, that explanation doesn't pass the sniff test because the planet is large enough for God to have created a garden with sufficient resources to support a population of more than just two people. Why would God plant one or two humans in a small garden on a planet large enough to accommodate billions of people? I suppose God could have intended for the garden and the human population within it to grow naturally over time. However, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection already provides a secular mechanism for how that outcome could be achieved without special creation or intelligent design. It doesn't seem plausible or logically justifiable to presume that an omnipotent God would choose either the slow growth or natural evolution scenario for populating the entire planet as both of those methods are far less efficient than instantaneous special creation.

The next anticipated objection is that Genesis 1 indicates God did, indeed, create numerous human individuals (both male and female) and sent them to go forth and produce offspring. However, if God had instantaneously created many more than just one or two humans at the beginning of the world, then how is that scenario reconciled with the Genesis 2 account where there was initially just one instantaneously created human male who was later found to be lonely and subsequently supplied with a female companion fashioned from his own rib? If there were other male and female people running around in the garden, Adam wouldn't have been described as needing another human being to help him. Is it reasonable to believe that Adam wasn't interested in one of the female human beings already sharing the garden with him and needed a customized female companion born from the flesh of his own body?

Furthermore, what was God's motivation for creating separate biological sexes in the first place? Since God is depicted as an isolated being with an ability to produce another isolated being in his image, his creation of separate sexes is unexpected and unnecessarily complex. In fact, we know that there are creatures who are neither male nor female but have the capacity to naturally produce offspring. Therefore, it doesn't stand to reason that a genderless God would inexplicably create a living being with a male reproductive organ and then later decide to create a female version to serve as the male's helper and baby incubator. It would have been more efficient and less complicated for God to have designed Adam to be neither male nor female but with an ability to naturally reproduce with another human of the same genderless morphology. Had God considered that design option in advance, it certainly would have at least mitigated for the post-fall LGBTQ+ confusion.

Finally, if God did initially create just one man and one woman to live in the garden of Eden where they would subsequently produce offspring to populate the entire planet, then what is the theological justification for enabling a situation where the entire fate of humanity would hinge on the freewill decisions of just two fallible people? Had God planned ahead a bit better and instantaneously created several hundred people rather than just two, the odds are greatly improved that at least a few dozen of them would freely choose to obey their God and be allowed to remain in the garden. Then again, if the Genesis 1 account is to be incorporated, several other human beings with freewills of their own were also in the garden of Eden just before Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. If so, why were those innocent people ejected from paradise along with Adam and Eve if they had freely chosen to not eat the forbidden fruit? Is it reasonable to believe, in this scenario, that every other person with freewill in the garden also chose to disobey their creator in the same manner as Adam and Eve?

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY DID GOD CREATE HUMANS WITH THE CAPACITY TO REPRODUCE SEXUALLY?

The simple answer was because he wanted to. Logically an omnipotent God cannot be forced to do something against his will so whatever happens he either allows or purposed. Since the bible presents Adam and Eve as being direct creations by him there is no other logical conclusion but that he created humans as sexual beings with the ability to procreate because it was his own good pleasure to do so.

Is procreation not a messy, slow and "inefficient" method of filling the earth with humans?

Something is "inefficient" if it wastes time, energy or resources and should not be confused with expenditure. If time, energy and resources are well spent, in sufficient amounts to achieve a desired goal then it cannot be described as a waste, ergo it is not inefficient.

To illustrate: Raising a happy and healthy child demands an enormous amount of time, energy and resources. A loving parent may spend sleepless nights nursing and feeding a baby, he may expend a lot of energy playing with and nurturing his child, not to mention the thousands of dollars spent feeding, housing clothing and educating it. If the child grows up healthy and happy would the parent describe the expenditure as "... A waste of time and resources" ? If not then we can say there was expenditure but not "inefficiency".

Of course God could have instantly filled the earth with genderless beings, but while this would have taken less time if it didn't actually achieve his goals then whatever split second of time and energy used would have itself been a waste. If Gods primary goal was that he shared the pleasure of having children and if he created sexual beings because he wanted them to enjoy both conceiving and raising those children and if how long it took was of little importance, then his method cannot rightfully be described as "inefficient".


NOTE The bible narrative indicate God had already created intelligent lifeforms that were not gender bound that were not given the ability to procreate and various animals that reproduced asexuually.

The bible God is described as being the very personification of love. If sharing the ability to love and be loved was the ultimate goal for humans, if sex was designed, not only as a means to an end but as a way for such beings to express and enjoy the ecstasy of erotic love, if the beauty and harmony of family linked through procreation was the goal and if enjoying the miracle of carrying and raising a new and seperate life conceived in love, part of both parents but entirely unique was the goal, instantaneous asexual reproduction would represent abjecf failure.

CONCLUSION God is presented in scripture as being loving and generous, with his "time" energy and attention. His sharing the ability to become a loving parent may be deemed "unjustifible" to those that do not know or regard the power of love . Anyone that has looked for the first time at his newborn child, seen his mother's eyes staring back at them, and felt the love swell in their heart knows all this talk of "efficient asexual reproduction" is at best just so much nonsense and at worst a reflection of an antihuman (dehumanizing) worldview to be pitied and demolished in equal measure.

JW


RELATED POSTS

Wouldn't it have been better if we were all instantaneously created like Adam and Eve ?
viewtopic.php?p=873913#p873913

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE GARDEN OF EDEN

[bluegreenearth]

LOGIC


Logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". There is nothing in the definition that is negated by subjectivity. If an individual's reasoning is conducted by a strict adherence to that which they personally find beautiful then therein lies the logic.

Then your argument from beauty is a fallacious case of special pleading.

[bluegreenearth]

Could you explain why you presume an intention that "the garden and the human population within it to grow naturally over time" to be :

a) inefficient
b) implausible
c) illogical
d) unjustifiable (you might like to explain to whom)

Presuming the Christian God exists and has the capacity to instantaneously achieve any of his goals, gradually growing the human population naturally over time is less plausible than God instantaneously creating it.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #11]

I never said anything about instantaneous asexual reproduction but that genderless humans could have been created with the capacity to reproduce with each other. That reproductive method could have been as intimate and loving as what we observe in ourselves.

[Quantrill]

It was necessary for all of mankind to come from one man and woman in order for God to accomplish His work of redemption and producing sons and daughters.

Because all are from Adam, all are declared guilty by Adam's sin. Thus all those who are in Christ, are declared righteous by Christ's work.

Therefore, when one now turns to Christ he is born-again. He is born of the very Spirit of God. He is a true son of God. He is not just a religious person following some religious rules or dogma. Not just a son because he is created by God. He is a true child and son or daughter of God.

Quantrill

[JehovahsWitness]

Could you explain why you presume an intention that "the garden and the human population within it to grow naturally over time" to be :

a) inefficient
b) implausible
c) illogical
d) unjustifiable (you might like to explain to whom)

Presuming the Christian God exists and has the capacity to instantaneously achieve any of his goals, gradually growing the human population naturally over time is less plausible than God instantaneously creating it.

Well you've made the statement, now (unless you believe debating involves stating what you think without support and expecting everyone to just accept that as truth) you will need to present some kind of rationale.


NOTE There are also three other adjectives you used which have not been supported (see above).



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

LOGIC


Logic is defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". There is nothing in the definition that is negated by subjectivity. If an individual's reasoning is conducted by a strict adherence to that which they personally find beautiful then therein lies the logic.

Then your argument from beauty is a fallacious case of special pleading.

How so? Please support this allegation.



JW

[bluegreenearth]

Well you've made the statement, now (unless you believe debating involves stating what you think without support and expecting everyone to just accept that as truth) you will need to present some kind of rationale.


NOTE There are also three other adjectives you used which have not been supported (see above).

Actually there were only three adjectives, but you separated "logical justification" into "illogical" and "unjustifiable" for some reason. Allow me to rephrase the problem in the form of critical thinking questions:

Presuming God has the capacity to instantaneously achieve any of his goals, what is the logical justification for choosing the gradual method for achieving his goal over the instantaneous method given that the outcome would have been identical?

Why would it be more plausible for God to choose the gradual (less efficient) method for achieving his goal when he had the capability of using the more efficient method of instantaneous special creation?

[JehovahsWitness]

Presuming God has the capacity to instantaneously achieve any of his goals, what is the logical justification for choosing the gradual method for achieving his goal over the instantaneous method given that the outcome would have been identical?

Why would it be more plausible for God to choose the gradual (less efficient) method for achieving his goal when he had the capability of using the more efficient method of instantaneous special creation?

Your questions for the most part are based on unsupported assumptions (why do you assume an omnipotent god needs to justify anything he does? Inefficincy of any kind has yet to be established...what goal are you presuming he had?)

As for the rest, you may take my comment above apply to any notion of "instantaneous special creation"
viewtopic.php?p=1017215#p1017215



JW

[bluegreenearth]

Your questions for the most part are based on unsupported assumptions (why do you assume an omnipotent god needs to justify anything he does? Inefficincy of any kind has yet to be established...what goal are you presuming he had?)

As for the rest, you may take my comment above apply to any notion of "instantaneous special creation"
viewtopic.php?p=1017215#p1017215

All assumptions about God, including your assumptions and those from the Bible, are unsupported. Therefore, my assumptions are no more invalid than any other assumptions.