She’s saying that a human father longs to shield his child from the risk the child will meet in the conflict with Satan, and that God gave His Son to meet a more fearful risk than that of any earthly child. I think the text is clear enough.

“The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. ‘Herein is love.’ Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!” {DA 49.2}


I have no problem in admitting being wrong if I think I’m wrong, which is not the case. I’ve read again our whole discussion about probability, and there’s nothing in my position I would change. Although I improved my way of expressing my arguments as the discussion progressed, what I’ve been maintaining from the very beginning of this discussion about probability till now is that the prior probability never ceases to be true, is never invalidated, because it represents the relation of the individual to the rest of the human race or to the group he belongs to, showing the difficulties involved in the process. So, even if the outcome is known beforehand, if you want to stress the difficulties involved in the process you have to express it in terms of the prior probability. Besides, all the examples I gave remain true, in my concept.
Several things you said I also consider wrong, like, for instance, the assertion that an event whose outcome is known is a random event. But, of course, I can’t convince you that you are wrong.


I’m not saying that it will happen with a 5% chance. I’m saying it will happen (which means 100% certainty), although the chance for this would be just 5%. These are two different ways of expressing things, which represent two different perspectives, one ignoring the difficulties, the other expressing them. Besides, coldly expressing things in terms of the final result can give rise to misunderstandings. Like I said previously, in 20 months, the woman could get pregnant in 1, and she got pregnant in this month because there was a combination of all the necessary factors for her to get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she could get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false.



No risk means either that you are facing no threat or that you are not vulnerable to the threat. If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to it, there is a risk, even if the outcome will be favorable. I think this was well illustrated in the example of the three Hebrews.


Of course not. From the human perspective, a) is the case (risk in the process and risk in the final result). From the divine perspective, c) is the case (risk in the process and no risk in the final result). Certainly there was risk in the process, otherwise there would have been no need for God to intervene; and certainly there was no risk in the final result, for evidently God knew He would intervene.


This is what I’m trying to show you for a long time. Your premise doesn’t prove what you want it to prove. The risk of something not occurring and the risk for the person involved are two different things.
What you said: If an event is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.
What I said: If your death is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur. But who said there is no risk for you?

I have no problem in admitting being wrong if I think I’m wrong, which is not the case.

I've not seen you admit to a single error (at least, I can't recall one) in I think it's been 4 years and hundreds of posts between us.

I’ve read again our whole discussion about probability, and there’s nothing in my position I would change.

Here's some positions I would consider changing if I were you:
a)That the probability of an event, P(A), can equal 1 is a definition that you disagree with.
b)The knowing the event of an outcome before it happens does not impact the "probability index."
c)That a final process can have no risk attached to it, but the process leading to that result can be risky.

Several things you said I also consider wrong, like, for instance, the assertion that an event whose outcome is known is a random event. But, of course, I can’t convince you that you are wrong.

The example I gave was of drawing a marble from a hat. If there are two marbles in a hat, and both of them blue, the probability of drawing a blue marble from the hat is 1 event thou the event is random (either marble can be drawn).

The probability for an event to occur is the number of favorable outcomes over the total number of outcomes. If these two numbers are equal, then the probability of the event occuring is 1, although either marble could be chosen.

Here's another example. There are certain games of chance where there are still random events to occur (drawing of cards), but these events will not change the final result. For example, say in blackjack playing with a single deck of cards, the Aces have all been played. Say you have 21. The dealer has 20. Say there are ten cards left. The last card being drawn is a random event. There are any of ten cards, none of the Aces, which can be drawn. If one were to ask the question, what is the probability that you will win (dealer will bust), the answer is 1 (10 favorable events over 10 possible events), however the drawing of the card is just a random event as it ever was.


Quote:
If something will happen with a 100% chance, you cannot say it will happen with a 5% chance. 100% chance means 1 in 1. 5% means 1 in 20.

I’m not saying that it will happen with a 5% chance. I’m saying it will happen (which means 100% certainty), although the chance for this would be just 5%.

The chance is 5% but it is 100%. You don't see this is a contradiction?

These are two different ways of expressing things, which represent two different perspectives, one ignoring the difficulties, the other expressing them. Besides, coldly expressing things in terms of the final result can give rise to misunderstandings. Like I said previously, in 20 months, the woman could get pregnant in 1, and she got pregnant in this month because there was a combination of all the necessary factors for her to get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she could get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false.

You only have to get pregnant once. Saying she will get pregnant with 100% probability means before dying she will give birth to a child. It has nothing to do with getting pregnant in any month.

You need to be more careful in defining what you are talking about. To assert there is a 5% chance of getting pregnant in a given month is very different than asserting that a woman will certainly become pregnant in her lifetime. This is jumping horses again.

You need to define what event you are talking about. Anyway, this is not the issue we were discussing before. We were discussing the idea that you can say that a favorable event will occur with certainty, yet there can be risk attached to it (i.e., it is possible for an unfavorable event to occur). These are mutualy exclusive.

Quote:
That the result won't change is irrelevant. We were speaking before the fact. The point is, if you know, before the fact, that you have a 100% chance of surviving a given event (it doesn't matter what the event is, nor how you know you will survive), then there is no risk attached to this event.

No risk means either that you are facing no threat or that you are not vulnerable to the threat.

Let's use precise language. No risk means there is no possibility of loss, or, synonymously, no chance that an unfavorable event will occur. (where "favorable" and "unfavorable" are dealing with something specific, the same specific thing, such as losing one's life.)


If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to it, there is a risk, even if the outcome will be favorable.

Only if "threat" means "the possibility of the unfavorable event occuring is greater than 0." Otherwise this is jumping horses, using "threat" to mean something different than what's under discussion. A similar comment applies to "vulnerable."

Changes words does not impact the concept under discussion. The concept is exceedingly simple:

*If the possibility of an unfavorable event occuring is greater than 0 (i.e. there is risk), then it cannot be the case that the favorable event will certainly occur.*


I think this was well illustrated in the example of the three Hebrews.

If God had not intervened, the Hebrews would have died. There was the possibility of an unfavorable event occuring. Given that God intervened, that possibility (and the associated risk) vanished.

Quote:
Had God not intervened, a) would have been the case, and it was the case before God intervened. After God intervened, b) became the case.

Of course not. From the human perspective, a) is the case (risk in the process and risk in the final result). From the divine perspective, c) is the case (risk in the process and no risk in the final result).

c) is impossible! I've demonstrated this in several different ways. You cannot have risk no risk in the final result unless there is no risk in any of the steps of the process.

One's perspective of things does not change reality. Reality is how God perceives things. We can, in ignorance, perceive risk where there is none. I've given examples of this as well.

Certainly there was risk in the process, otherwise there would have been no need for God to intervene; and certainly there was no risk in the final result, for evidently God knew He would intervene.

This is jumping horses. By the same logic that you assert that there was no risk in the final result, because God knew He would intervene, there was no risk in the process, because God knew he would intervene. The process in which God intervened was the Hebrew's not burning up, even though there were in a fire! The risk in this process was exactly the same as the risk of the final result. If you are going to allow the final result to be impacted by God's foreknowledge of what He would do, you need to do the same thing for the process.


Quote:
T: Regarding risk, I've been asserting that if an event is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur. ... Do you agree with this?

R: I do, but saying that there is no risk that an event won't occur is completely different from saying that there is no risk for the person involved in it. It's a paradox, but it's true.

T: How is it different? Why is it a paradox? Why is it true?

This is what I’m trying to show you for a long time. Your premise doesn’t prove what you want it to prove. The risk of something not occurring and the risk for the person involved are two different things.
What you said: If an event is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.
What I said: If your death is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur. But who said there is no risk for you?

Have to go now. I'll come back to this when I have time.

Curious. Neither have I seen you admit to a single error (at least, I can’t recall one). And it’s not 4 years, but 2.


I said I would no longer discuss this. If you want to re-read what I said, the post numbers are 88446, 88741, 88787, 88822, 88837.


I don’t know how many times now I’ve made clear that by “probability index” I meant the probability of something in relation to the general population, which is nothing but the prior probability. Another thing I will not discuss any more.


Again, I don’t know how many times now I’ve made clear that I was not discussing that. Re-read, for instance, my post #88528, or better yet, my post # 88657, where I say, “So, let it be clear that God's foreknowledge has to do with no risk that the result will change, not with the fact that the process is or is not risky.” This is another thing I will not discuss any more.



It’s not possible to give an example which can demonstrate that an event whose outcome is certain is a random event, since a random event is, by definition, one whose outcome is uncertain. If all the marbles in a hat are blue, drawing a blue marble from the hat is not a random, but a certain event, whose probability is 1; there is a different probability for which marble will be drawn, and in this case it's not 1. If you have the necessary points to win the game, the fact that you will win is not a random, but a certain event, whose probability is 1; there is another probability, which is not 1, for the sequence in which the cards will be drawn.


The prior probability is 5% and the posterior probability is 100%. Where is the contradiction?


If this is the case, what is the problem, then? In every temptation Christ could have failed, but God intervened supplying His power for Him to be victorious. Given that God intervened, that possibility (and the associated risk) vanished.


You are basing the whole defense of your view in the use of the word “risk” by Ellen White, but this, then, is a mistake. Ellen White said the Hebrews’ lives were at stake. Ellen White said Christ’s life was at stake. If, as you said, we can in ignorance perceive risk where there is none, then she was in ignorance perceiving risk where there was none.

Tom, I think we have already discussed things extensively and, of course, will not reach an agreement. I may reply to a point or another if necessary, but I’m trying to draw my participation in this discussions to a close.

I'm bringing the forward to make it easier for me to access and read it.

Again, just because Jesus possessed the ability and potential to fail on the cross, it in no way meant the Father was uncertain Jesus would succeed. The fact He said so many times Jesus would succeed is proof. Not once did the Father intimate Jesus would fail. Whatever Ellen White meant when she employed the word "risk" cannot be construed to imply the Father was unsure Jesus would succeed. To say otherwise is to say she contradicts the many places in the Bible where the Father clearly says Jesus would succeed.

That's good you say the Bible trumps Ellen White. We should all keep that in mind lest we become like some accuse us of, of being a cult.

I haven't found any place where she disagrees with the Bible. Which is what I hear you trying to say. But, to say that her use of "risk" must not mean "risk" because you say the Bible says there was no "risk" is assuming something that isn't established.

Do you find anywhere in the Bible where it does mean there was a risk? Contrast that by asking if there's any place in the Bible which says we will succeed and with others who would succeed, but some failed.

Something else to think about is if there was no risk, was this just some ritual God had to do? Some appeasement? Which comes down to, if there was no risk, was any sacrifice made? Did He really offer His Son? If it was a sure thing, was anything given? Why did Jesus have to die?

Nowhere in the Bible does it represent the Father feeling unsure Jesus would succeed on the cross. Can we agree on this foundational point? If so, then we should be able to explore how a person can know if a prophey is conditional or unconditional.

This doesn't matter.



This isn't a foundational point. The foundational point regards risk. Does God take risks? *That's* the foundational point.

We can address this from the standpoint of Scripture or the SOP. The SOP makes clear that God takes risks, and did so specifically in regards to sending Christ. Whether the Bible addresses this point has no bearing on whether or not what the SOP says is true or not.

Regarding whether or not the Bible presents God as taking risks is a foundational point we may consider.



Certainly how one can determine if a prophecy is condition or unconditional is not dependent upon whether or not Scripture addresses the specific point of God's taking a risk in sending Christ. However, I can say there are people who believe this is the case (that God took a risk in sending Christ) who are not believers in the SOP (i.e., their belief that it is the case that God took a risk in sending Christ is based solely on Scripture).

The post I had in mind was 88407:



As I explained:





Here was the example given:



I put this here as it seemed to fit. I looked over the posts you cited, and didn't see any recognition of the basic concept that the probability of an event can be 1 (or 0). The only post which looked to deal specifically with the subject was the last one you cited:



However, this assertion isn't true. What you said was this:



This says nothing about an event being random. It's just the definition of the probability of an event occurring. Indeed, I checked to see if there was anything in the immediate context (going back through the previous page of posts), and couldn't find anything discussing an event being random.



Here's the example:



What are you disagreeing with?

This is apples and oranges. That should be obvious.



Again apples and oranges.

Christ could have failed because there was a possibility that He might choose to give in to the temptation. His risk of failure had nothing to do with whether or not God would take action.



No, this isn't true. For example, in Christ's Object Lessons she writes that all heaven was imperiled for us. Also, the view isn't dependent upon Ellen White at all.



I believe Ellen White was correct in her assessment that risk was involved.



I let you have the last word on this years ago, but Mark resurrected it, so have fun!