Zero.

Tom, I also agree with this.

Tom, God's ability to know the future like He knows the past does not in least diminish the risk Jesus took.


I'll ask you the same question I've been asking Rosangela. As of 1000 B.C., what was the probability that Christ would fail? Was it 0? Or greater than 0?

Zero.

If the probability was 0 that Christ would fail, then Ellen White was wrong when she wrote the following:



I believe Ellen White was correct.

TE: If it's not possible to create angels that wouldn't sin, doesn't that suggest a design flaw? Why should sin be the inevitable result of creating angels? That doesn't make any sense to me.

MM: No, it doesn't suggest a design flaw. The fact two-thirds of the angels choose not to sin and rebel is proof.

It's proof that your assertion that God couldn't create angels that wouldn't sin is false, right?

TE: Even if this were the case, why wouldn't God simply have refrained from creating angels, and just stick with the millions of other world, including trillions of beings that wouldn't sin?

MM: We could also ask, Why did He create humans on the same planet He banished the evil angles?

What?

......................

TE: You are asserting that God had no option which would not include sin and death. What about simply not creating Lucifer? Or not creating angels? Why should that have resulted in sin and death? (I'm expecting a circular answer to be forthcoming).

MM: No other option could be better than the one Jesus employed, and I assume one that did not include sin and death would be better.

Yup! There it is!

I simply disagree with your definition of probability. Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index. Even if I knew beforehand that the woman mentioned in the article would get pregnant, I wouldn’t say her chance of getting pregnant was of 100%. I would say, “Her chance of getting pregnant is of less than 5%, but she will get pregnant.” All the factors will contribute for her 5% of chance to occur. In 20 months, she can get pregnant in 1, and this is the month in which she can get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she can get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false. Saying that the probability was of 100% just because you know the outcome beforehand is using post hoc probability and, as you yourself said, is based on a fallacy of reasoning.
I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle.
In the same way, there was a chance for Christ to sin – that’s why there was a risk.

We can apply this to the case of the woman getting pregnant. Given that God knew the woman would become pregnant, the chance is 100% that the woman would become pregnant. This is exactly what happened with the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth, and Sarah. Here we have not only cases where it was difficult for a woman to become pregnant, but impossible (apart from divine intervention). Yet the chance was 100% it would happen. One could state with certainty that these women would become pregnant.

I simply disagree with your definition of probability.

I haven't suggested any private definition of probability. I'm sure the dictionary definition is fine.



This is fine.

Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index.

Yes it does. If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, then the probability is either 0 or 1. The fact that you would make such a statement makes it clear that you have no understanding of probability.

Even if I knew beforehand that the woman mentioned in the article would get pregnant, I wouldn’t say her chance of getting pregnant was of 100%. I would say, “Her chance of getting pregnant is of less than 5%, but she will get pregnant.”

I'd suggest you speak to someone who understands the subject matter you're dealing with. You obviously have no background in this, and I know that you are biased against anything I would say. If you live near a university, you could speak to a math professor.

I studied for a phd in Mathematics. I have worked in the actuarial field. I have a strong background in probability and statistics. I know what I'm talking about, but I strongly doubt you would listen to me.

What you're saying here is just wrong, and anyone who understands this subject will tell you that.

All the factors will contribute for her 5% of chance to occur. In 20 months, she can get pregnant in 1, and this is the month in which she can get pregnant. 100% of chance would imply that in 20 months she can get pregnant in all of them, which is patently false. Saying that the probability was of 100% just because you know the outcome beforehand is using post hoc probability and, as you yourself said, is based on a fallacy of reasoning.

This is not what post hoc probability is about. If you know that outcome of an event beforehand, that affects the probability that you would assign to it. I can't imagine why you would think this wouldn't be the case.

I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle. In the same way, there was a chance for Christ to sin – that’s why there was a risk.

I was assuming you had more of a knowledge of probability than you do. I don't see how we can continue this conversation, until you learn something about probability.

Rosangela,

This last post has been bugging me all day. I really don't know what to do about it. I know it will come off as arrogant and negative. This is a frustrating thing about trying to converse on the internet.

I believe the points I'm making in the above post are true. No one who understands probability would make the assertion that "Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability index." The *only* way probability gets set is based on knowledge that you have about the event before it occurs. The more knowledge, the better one can set a probability.

For example, a die has six sides, a number from 1 to 6 on each side. With no more knowledge of the event than this, one would assume that the die would have a 1 in 6 chance of coming up with each given number from 1 to 6. If we knew the die were weighted, that would change the probability we would assign. If the die were weighted so that a 1 would come up 100% of the time, the probability of a 1 coming up would be 1. If we knew, before the fact, that a die would come up 1 with 100% certainty, regardless of the reason that we knew this to be the case, that knowledge would allow us to assign a probability to that event of 1.

Regarding the statement about being biased against me, I believe that is true as well. In 3 years, or whatever it has been, I can't recall a single time that you have admitted that I was right about anything. So that is pretty strong evidence of bias.

It is human nature not to want to admit error to someone with whom one is carrying on an argument. It is for this reason that I have suggested discussing the subject with someone who understands it, but towards whom you have no feelings one way or the other.

Regarding the last statement that I don't see how we can carry on this conversation until you learn something about probability, I don't like the way that sounds. I should have written it better. Or perhaps leaving it out entirely would have been better. I was pretty amazed about what you wrote. It really does demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. However, I feel that my tone was very uncharitable, and would like to apologize for that. I still don't know how I could better have expressed what I wrote, but I could have done better than I did I'm quite sure with more effort and time. I did spend over an hour on it, but that wasn't enough. I could have waited a day, and thought it over, and come up with something better.

At any rate, I apologize for anything I wrote which comes off as offensive or abrasive or arrogant or anything like that.


Tom

Tom,

You evidently did not understand my argument. The difference is in perspective. You are concerned just with the final result, while I'm concerned with the whole process. Could you please address the following argument?



If I say that her chance of getting pregnant is 100% just because I know the outcome beforehand, I have to make clear I'm concerned just with the final result, because if I say this to someone who is concerned with the whole process, I'm implying the second set of circumstances, not the first one.

I'm sorry, but you're not stating your point precisely enough for me to comment on it. Would you please state it mathematically?

You made the comment that "knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability." (you added the word "index", which is not needed). It's true that knowing the outcome after an event has occurred doesn't change the probability of what it was before the event occurred. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to speak of things in these terms. Probability is, by definition, concerned with the likelihood of an event which is to occur. So taking out the "after" part, we have:

"Knowing the outcome either before the event doesn’t change the probability."

This is incorrect. Determining the probability of an event is done by considering everything that is known about the event in question. I gave the example of a weighted die to illustrate this. If you know a certain event will occur, then the probability of that event occurring is 1. The definition of an event's having a probability of occurring of 1 means there is a 100% chance that it will happen. Conversely, if there is a 100% chance of an event occurring, it has a probability of 1. To say you know the outcome of an event is to say you know it have a probability of 1 of occurring.

Here's another example. The reason insider trading is illegal is because the trader has knowledge related to an event which is supposed to have uncertainty attached to it. This is the same idea.



The participation (or lack thereof) of a male is irrelevant. The probability of Mary's getting pregnant was exactly 1 (once she agreed; of course, God would not have forced her to become pregnant against her will).

*How* you know what the outcome of an event will be is irrelevant. *That* you know the outcome of the event is the salient point.

In this case, it wouldn’t make sense either to speak of probability in relation to something you know with 100% certainty will happen for, according to Webster, probable is something “that can reasonably but not certainly be expected.”


My argument doesn’t have to do with mathematical calculations. I’ll try to explain it more clearly with some examples.
God knows the future and revealed some facts of it to us in His Word, therefore we know beforehand that these things will happen. So, according to you, the probability of these things happening is 100%.

What was the probability of Mary getting pregnant?
For a non-Bible student – 0 (pregnancy without a male)
For a Bible student – 1, or 100%
When, instead of saying “0, but it did happen,” you say “100%,” you are just focusing on the final result – getting pregnant or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

What was the probability of Sarah getting pregnant?
For a non-Bible student – 0 (pregnancy after menopause)
For a Bible student* - 1, or 100% (*no Bible at that time, just God's oral promise)
When, instead of saying “0, but it did happen,” you say “100%,” you are just focusing on the final result – getting pregnant or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

What was the probability of Christ fulfilling just 8 of the many OT prophecies about Him?
For a non-Bible student – 0.00000000000000001 (as someone calculated it)
For a Bible student - 1, or 100%
When, instead of saying “0.00000000000000001, but it did happen,” you say “100%”, you are just focusing on the final result – fulfilling the prophecies or not, and ignoring the difficulty involved in this.

100% may be true in a sense (the final result), but it ignores the difficulties involved in the process.