Yes, as I see and understand it, the imperilment of Heaven, whatever that actually means, as Rosangela stated it, was in relation to the process not in relation to the product, or final result.

EGW spoke to us in the sense of process, rather than in the sense of the final product. When she wrote this, she wrote it after the final product, or after the fact, yet, she still wrote it that from the perspective of the process. There was risk in the process. Of course, there can't be risk in the final product, especially when the final product is known, and, as I and others have been stating, God sees the final product, but conveyed to EGW the risk in the process, which she wrote from that perspective.

Whereas, EGW wrote in the sense of the process, in which she presented the risk involved in that process, irrespective of the final result, which was again known to her at the time she wrote what she wrote, the Bible prophets wrote in the sense of the product, or the final result. In all the prophecies relating to the 1st coming of Christ, Daniel wrote in the sense of the result, rather than in the sense of the process. This is why there wasn't any risk factor stated by Daniel.

I had better stop, as I am rambling on and obviously repeating myself.

You have a number of misconceptions regarding probabilty. I think I'll start by addressing these, so at least we can have some basis for discussing things. Then we can come back and look at a few of the arguments you've made.



The definition of “probable” you’ve given has to do with its use in general speech. It’s not a mathematical definition. Here’s a mathematical definition of probability:



An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.

A fundamental principle, which really needs to be understood, is that it does make sense to speak of an event having a probability of 1 of occurring, or, to state the same thing in another way, that an event is certain to occur.

The following equation explains how to calculated the probability of an event occurring.

P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur /The Total Number Of Possible Outcomes.

When an event is certain to occurr, the numerator will equal the denominator, and P(A) will be 1.

Finally you've written things which suggest these is a subjective element to probability. Like this:



If we're dealing with a theological question, then, of course, things are subjective. For example, you may state that when God is looking at the future, He is looking at things which, to Him, have already occurred, and I could dispute that. Or I could state that when God looks into the future, He sees not a certain thing that will happen, but all the possible things which can happen, and you may dispute that.

However, probability is a branch of mathematics, which is a hard science. The things I'm telling you about probability are not matters of opinion. They are not "my" definitions or opinions.

If I state that 5 is an integer, it is not reasonable for you to say, "I don't agree with your definition of integer." This isn't a subject which is open to debate. Integers have a precise mathematical definition, and so does probability.

Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree. “Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html)
About the concept of posterior probability or post-hoc probability, it does exist, and is calculated by a formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability


Which means we cannot use the frequentist interpretation in this area, but the Bayesian interpretation.


I’m not disagreeing with the concepts, but with the way they are being applied.

An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.

Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.

It’s not “sometimes” used; it’s always used. I provided the formula for you; P(A) = The Number Of Ways Event A Can Occur /The Total Number Of Possible Outcomes. For example, what’s the probability of a die coming up with a number between 1 and 6? It’s 1.
This isn’t a “concept” that you can disagree with. What you are asserting is something like the following “While the concept that 5 is an integer is sometimes used, I disagree.”

“Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html)
About the concept of posterior probability or post-hoc probability, it does exist, and is calculated by a formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability

We're not dealing with post hoc probability. Before trying to run, let's learn how to walk.

Quote:
If we're dealing with a theological question, then, of course, things are subjective.

Which means we cannot use the frequentist interpretation in this area, but the Bayesian interpretation.

Since we’re not dealing with post-hoc probability, Bayesian statistics isn’t applicable.

Quote:
If I state that 5 is an integer, it is not reasonable for you to say, "I don't agree with your definition of integer." This isn't a subject which is open to debate. Integers have a precise mathematical definition, and so does probability.

I’m not disagreeing with the concepts, but with the way they are applied.

Until you understand the concepts involved, you have no basis to disagree with how they are being applied. Someone with even a rudamentory understanding of probability would not assert the things you are asserting.

For example, take what you wrote above regarding whether en event can have a probability of 1. This isn’t open to debate. In the study of probability, it simply is the case that an event can have a probability of one. For example, if there are three marbles in a hat, all of them blue, and you draw a marble out of the hat, what is the probability that the marble you draw out is blue? It’s 1. That an event can have a probability of 1 is something you would learn in the very beginning of day 1 of a course in probability.

Imagine you are just starting to study English, and I tell you that “a” is the first letter of the alphabet. Suppose you say, “I disagree with your definition of ‘alphabet’”. I explain that the alphabet is not something I defined. It has a standard definition. "A" is the first letter of the alphabet. You respond that you disagree with how I am applying the concept. This is what is happening in our dialog when you assert that you disagree with the statement that an event can have a probability of 1.

I mentioned three things in my previous post to this. The first is what the definition of probability is. The second is how the probability of an event is calculated. The third is that these definitions are not open to debate. They are not based on personal interpretations of mine. If you disagree with any of these assertions, I suggest you find a math professor, who will confirm these things are true.

Once you understand and accept these principles, I can go back to certain things you have written which display a misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, (for example, your pregnancy arguments, and your assertion that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens does not affect the probability of that event occurring), but I cannot address these things meaningfully until we have a foundation to start with.

Let's try to apply this to some specific example. Say, regarding to a game of hockey, I make the assertion, "There was risk of the goaltender not getting a shutout." The final process would be a game in which the opposing team scored one or more goals. So to assert there is no risk in the final product would be to assert there is no chance the opposing team will score a goal. It is certain the goaltender will obtain a shutout.

Now let's discuss the risk in the process. What is the process? It is the game itself. To assert that there is a risk in the process is to assert that it IS possible for the opposing team to score a goal during the game. The shutout is in doubt.

You're asserting something, Daryl, which is mutually exclusive. If the process is in doubt, so is the final product.

The numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (or not), rigorously speaking there is not a probability, but a certainty. This is what I mean:

“The concepts of PROBABILITY and CERTAINTY are used, or implied, in all estimates and predictions. A single prediction of an outcome of an event assumes that it is CERTAIN; i.e. the prediction has a probability of 1.0. Ref: Ang and Tang.
“If two or more different predictions are made for the outcome of the same event then the probability of each should be estimated. i.e. What is the probability that each one will describe the outcome correctly.”
(http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtq4.htm)


Aren’t we using post-hoc probability? Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.


Go ahead. Like everybody else, I’ve studied statistics and probability theory in high school, so I’m not completely ignorant in the matter.

Her comment refers to Jesus' ability to sin. It does not imply that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus fail or succeed. If that is what she had intended for us to get our of her comment she would have plainly said so. She would not have left it up to us to figure it out on our own. It doesn't work that way; especially not when God repeatedly said Jesus would succeed. Your idea that the fact God didn't express His doubts doesn't mean He didn't have them isn't supported by the facts.

That's not what I meant. There are certain things God will not do. And there are certain things that God can theoretically do, but that He will never do because it would be wrong, it wouldn't be perfect. For example, God would have never considered creating angels differently than He did, because it would have been wrong, it wouldn't have been perfect. God cannot do anything wrong or less than perfect. Therefore, He couldn't have created angels that were by design incapable of sinning.


You are asking, Why didn't God just simply choose not to create angels since He knew one-third of them would end up sinning, since there were already plenty of other FMAs that He knew were never going to choose to sin. I asked essentially the same question. Why did God choose to create humans knowing they were going to sin? Why did He create them on the same planet He banished evil angels? Why? Sister White answers it this way:

AG 129
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning. . . . Therefore redemption was not an afterthought . . . but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {AG 129.2}


Not so. You are assuming there was such an option. But the fact God did not employ it is evidence it does not exist. Otherwise, you are implying God purposely chose to ignore it, to insist on one that He knew included sin and death. Or, you are insisting He was ignorant of it until after the option He employed went south. Neither one is flattering.

R: Aren’t we using post-hoc probability? Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.

MM: Tom, I agree with Rosangela. All of your examples ignore the fact God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. Thus, probability per se has nothing to do with it. The risk Jesus took in saving us was real. But the outcome was known and certain. None of the risk related quotes you like to post say God did not know the outcome ahead of time. That is how we can know if a prophecy is unconditional or not.

It’s not “sometimes” used; it’s always used. ... This isn’t a “concept” that you can disagree with.

Rosangela:The numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (or not), rigorously speaking there is not a probability, but a certainty. This is what I mean:

“The concepts of PROBABILITY and CERTAINTY are used, or implied, in all estimates and predictions. A single prediction of an outcome of an event assumes that it is CERTAIN; i.e. the prediction has a probability of 1.0. Ref: Ang and Tang.
“If two or more different predictions are made for the outcome of the same event then the probability of each should be estimated. i.e. What is the probability that each one will describe the outcome correctly.”
(http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtq4.htm)

Rigourously speaking, probabilities range from 0 to 1. There is no other definition in the study of probability than this. Typical problems are stated like this: There are 5 marbles in a hat, 3 of them blue, 1 red, 1 white. If you draw two marbles, what is the probability both of them are blue? Often a probability will be 0 or 1. For example, if two marbles were drawn, one white and one read, and the question were asked, what is the probability of drawing a blue marble (the third one drawn), the answer would be 1.
That a probability can be 0 or 1 is something you would learn at the beginning of the first class in a probability course.

Quote:
Since we’re not dealing with post-hoc probability, Bayesian statistics isn’t applicable.

Aren’t we using post-hoc probability?

No! My question *specifically stated* “before the fact,” so the answer is unequivocally “no.” We are NOT dealing with post-hoc probability. I simply asked the question, “What is the probability, as of the time 1000 B.C., that Christ would fail”?

Since God knows the end from the beginning, He is using post-hoc probability (from our point of view), and He is informing us the post-hoc probability beforehand.

If this were true, why wouldn’t He have said that He sent His Son at the certainty of success rather than at the risk of failure and eternal loss? Post-hoc, the probability of success would be 1.

Quote:
Once you understand and accept these principles, I can go back to certain things you have written which display a misunderstanding of the underlying concepts, (for example, your pregnancy arguments, and your assertion that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens does not affect the probability of that event occurring), but I cannot address these things meaningfully until we have a foundation to start with.

Rosangela:Go ahead. Like everybody else, I’ve studied statistics and probability theory in high school, so I’m not completely ignorant in the matter.

That’s not a subject studied in High Schools here in the states. So they teach that in Brazilian High Schools? That’s interesting.

If you’ve studied the subject, I do not understand why you are asserting certain things you are asserting. For example:

1) When I wrote, “An event *can* have a probability of 1. There’s no problem with that.” You responded, “Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.”
2) Knowing the outcome before the event doesn’t change the probability.

No one with even a cursory understanding of probability would assert these things.