Glenn Miller on genocide

[Psychic Missile]

Notice how I already anticipated that objection by the phrase "an act of free will". If God wants us to to enter into relationship with him by free will then He by necessity must create agents who are capable of rejecting Him. If God created a being that couldn't act contrary to how He wanted it to act then there is no way that being could be said to have a free will in any meaningful sense of the word.

That makes no sense. People who have a relationship with God entered into that relationship by their own free will. There's no need for God to create people who do not want to enter into that relationship.

[JonathanL]

That makes no sense. People who have a relationship with God entered into that relationship by their own free will. There's no need for God to create people who do not want to enter into that relationship.

God does not create people who do not want to enter into relationship with Him, He creates people who have the ABILITY to decide to reject him and the chance that some of those people will choose to exercise that ability is very possible. If God decided to create only those humans who He knew would choose to enter into relationship with Him it would amount to nothing less than making free will irrelevant.

[Doug Shaver]

He creates people who have the ABILITY to decide to reject him

I'll admit to having that ability, but not to having ever exercised it. If someone tells me that leprechauns exist and I don't believe them, I'm not rejecting leprechauns. I am rejecting the assertion that I should believe leprechauns exist. It's the same thing when someone tells me God exists.

[JonathanL]

I'll admit to having that ability, but not to having ever exercised it. If someone tells me that leprechauns exist and I don't believe them, I'm not rejecting leprechauns. I am rejecting the assertion that I should believe leprechauns exist. It's the same thing when someone tells me God exists.

You're right that from your perspective you're not rejecting God, but rather the belief that God exists.


But if God exists, then your rejection (which I'm in this particular instance using as a neutral term, without any value-judgements) to believe in the existence of God, for whatever reasons you might have, also constitute a rejection of God himself.

[Psychic Missile]

God does not create people who do not want to enter into relationship with Him, He creates people who have the ABILITY to decide to reject him and the chance that some of those people will choose to exercise that ability is very possible. If God decided to create only those humans who He knew would choose to enter into relationship with Him it would amount to nothing less than making free will irrelevant.

1. God decided to create only those humans who He knew would choose to enter into relationship with Him
2. Free will [is] irrelevant

How do you get from 1 to 2?

[lilpixieofterror]

1. God decided to create only those humans who He knew would choose to enter into relationship with Him
2. Free will [is] irrelevant

How do you get from 1 to 2?

This isn't rocket science PM (although judging by your total lack of the ability to read, it might as well be to you) because for something to be a 'free choice'; you actually have to have the ability not to choose it.

[Psychic Missile]

This isn't rocket science PM (although judging by your total lack of the ability to read, it might as well be to you) because for something to be a 'free choice'; you actually have to have the ability not to choose it.

How does God only creating people who would choose a relationship with him remove choice? The choice is still being made. God just knows the answer in advance.

[Doug Shaver]

But if God exists, then your rejection (which I'm in this particular instance using as a neutral term, without any value-judgements) to believe in the existence of God, for whatever reasons you might have, also constitute a rejection of God himself.

If God exists, then he has authority over me. You say I am rejecting an authority. There is no way to make that a value-neutral assertion.

[JonathanL]

If God exists, then he has authority over me. You say I am rejecting an authority. There is no way to make that a value-neutral assertion.

And I never said it was. I said that I was using the word 'reject', in the specific instance of you rejecting the belief in the existence of God, as value-neutral. But it's really not the most important part of my point (It's not even part of the point even, more a side note), so I'm not really sure why you choose to focus on that instead of the point of my post.

[Doug Shaver]

so I'm not really sure why you choose to focus on that instead of the point of my post.

Maybe I missed the point of your post. Tell me the point again, please.

[jordanriver]

That makes no sense. People who have a relationship with God entered into that relationship by their own free will. There's no need for God to create people who do not want to enter into that relationship.

how would that work.

How would God 'know' they would not worship Him if they did not exist ever (in the future)

If they exist in the future, then they have real existing lives (therefore souls)

To prevent their birth now, then, means destroying souls that exist (remember, no past present future for Bible God, He simply just "IS")

[MaxVel]

Here is what he says:

"(2) the evil/violence of the people were both against God and against humanity (Gen 6.12) and was VERY EXTENSIVE ("filled"); (3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2); ... "

It seems to me that he stating as fact that the violence (1) was very extensive, so emphatically that it deserves ALL CAPS. For the sexual violence, he quotes a specific verse, and yet when we read the verse, it does not indicate that. I can accept that Miller was speculating, but I object to the way he presents it as something else.(2) When speculation is presented as fact, I will call it "making stuff up".

{numbers and underlining mine}

(1) Miller specifically says "...the evil/violence of the people.." so you're unfairly representing his position by only linking it to violence.


(2) Notice his use of qualifiers "...some of the evil was probably..." in his point (3). He's not stating a 'fact', he's giving his interpretation, presented as such.

So you do unfairly represent him as "making stuff up" when he specifically qualifies what he says (it's not 'fact', but his interpretation); and when he gives reasons and supports it from the text. Miller may be wrong in his interpretation, but he's not presenting it as fact when it's not.

I am not sure what Miller's position is, hence I said: "It is not clear who the sons of God were; one possibility is that they are angels. That can hardly be any justification for the flood!" To be explicit, I do not know who Miller thinks the sons of God are, however, if he thinks they are angels, then in that case he cannot cite that as a rationale for the Flood. On the other hand, he might think they are the descendants of Seth, and the sexual violence is merely the taking of wives.

It is clear he thinks sexual violence is an issue and that it is indicated in the text, as he says: "(3) some of the evil was probably sexual violence or violation (Gen 6.1-2);". What do you think he believes the sexual violence to be? Or is it (as I strongly suspect) that he wants to keep it vague to give the impression of something horrible, without any actual basis.

You're arguing that Miller's unknown view on who 'the sons of God' were is what he thinks justified the Flood??? But this is just a case of you "making stuff up", because he says nothing of the kind, and I already pointed that out.



I won't go over the rest of your response as I feel I've more than adequately shown that you misread and misrepresent Glen Miller. If you're really curious about his position, email him, and he might add your email and his response to his site.

[MaxVel]

It's just the Epicurus phrasing. An omnipotent, benevolent deity doesn't have to cause suffering and doesn't want to cause suffering.

But that is not a formulation that leads to a logical contradiction between God existing and there being evil. Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, especially under point 1.3.

The upshot is that the idea that either the actuality of certain undesirable states of affairs, or at least the possibility, may be logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, is not without some initial plausibility, and if some such claim can be sustained, it will follow immediately that the mere existence of evil cannot be incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

How does this bear upon evidential formulations of the argument from evil? The answer would seem to be that if there can be evils that are logically necessary for goods that outweigh them, then it is hard to see how the mere existence of evil—in the absence of further information—can provide much in the way of evidence against the existence of God.

Philosophers have moved on from such formulations to ones that argue that the amount of evil makes it less likely that a good God exists.

[lilpixieofterror]

How does God only creating people who would choose a relationship with him remove choice? The choice is still being made. God just knows the answer in advance.

Are you thinking before you make your post PM? If the only choice you have is obey... how do you have a choice to begin with?

[Enjolras]

how would that work.

How would God 'know' they would not worship Him if they did not exist ever (in the future)

If they exist in the future, then they have real existing lives (therefore souls)

To prevent their birth now, then, means destroying souls that exist (remember, no past present future for Bible God, He simply just "IS")

The idea is that God has access to "Middle Knowledge." That is, he would know who would choose him if he created them. So God could look ahead at all potential people he might create, and then only bring into actualization those who would in fact follow his ways. That way all who choose him would do so freely, even though there would be no actual persons who reject him.