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.

My question was just a simple probability question. Like, what's the odds that a coin to be flipped will be heads. Could you answer a question like this? Or would you point out that this question ignores the fact that God knows the future like He knows the past?

The risk Jesus took in saving us was real. But the outcome was known and certain.

Black is white. Black is black.

None of the risk related quotes you like to post say God did not know the outcome ahead of time.

Not without an understanding of logic.

That is how we can know if a prophecy is unconditional or not.

What is?

Her comment refers to Jesus' ability to sin.

No, it doesn’t! When Waggoner argued that Christ could not sin because He had perfect faith, Ellen White corrected him. Waggoner was not arguing that because of Christ’s perfect faith, He did not have the physical ability to sin. That wouldn’t make any sense. He argued that it wasn’t possible for Christ to sin.

No one doubts Christ had the physical ability to sin. This was never an issue. You don’t correct an issue that doesn’t exist.

It does not imply that God did not know ahead of time if Jesus fail or succeed.

If God knew with 100% certainty that Christ would succeed, then it could not be said that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I discussed this with a couple of friends of mine who aren’t Adventists, and they saw this right away. Really, it’s obvious. I think only having a preconceived idea about how God sees things would enable one not to see this.

If that is what she had intended for us to get our of her comment she would have plainly said so.

That’s not true. There are many things that one can infer that she didn’t plainly say. We can reason things that she didn’t say from things she did.

She would not have left it up to us to figure it out on our own. It doesn't work that way;

Sure it does! We have brains. God doesn’t have to spoon feed us everything. There are many things God leaves us to reason out. He *wants* us to reason things out. There are many EGW statements which bring this out.

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.

What idea? I never said anything about God’s not expressing doubts not meaning He didn’t have them.

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?

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.
So God was not capable of creating angels that wouldn’t sin, right? That’s what you are asserting.
Quote:
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?

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.
He could have chosen not to create the angels that would sin. He could have gone ahead and created the ones that wouldn’t. Actually simply not creating Lucifer would have been enough.
I asked essentially the same question. Why did God choose to create humans knowing they were going to sin?
He didn’t.
Why did He create them on the same planet He banished evil angels? Why? Sister White answers it this way:
She is not saying that it was certain that man would sin. Instead of cherry picking quotes, you should consider all she wrote on a subject. For example, she likened the plan of redemption, set into effect, for man to be like a wound that has the ability of being healed before the would even happens. She never took the fatalistic position that sin was inevitable, either for men or angels. If you look at “The Origin of Evil” in “The Great Controversy,” you can see this.

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}
Quote:
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!

Not so. You are assuming there was such an option. But the fact God did not employ it is evidence it does not exist.

This is just as circular as the other.

Here’s what your doing. You are asserting “God did A.” I ask you why God didn’t to B instead of A, since B would have led to a better result. Your response is that this would not have led to a better result because if it would have, then God would have done that. That’s just arguing in a circle. You could defend any assertion with this lack of reasoning.

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.

The unflattering result comes from *your* assumptions. Certainly it was an option for God not create Lucifer. Why didn’t He do this? Since God knew Lucifer would sin, according to your view of things, God must have preferred that sin come about than that it not. This is just simple logic.

This thread is not about flipping coins, Tom. Why do you keep citing examples that have nothing to do with the thread? It serves no purpose.


Again, Tom, this thread has nothing to do with the colors black or white.


But your logic, so far, ignores or rejects the fact God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun.


When God tells us the future based on the fact He knows the future like He knows the past, like rerun.

Tom,

What you are really saying is that God could have avoided sin and rebellion by not creating Lucifer, therefore, by creating Lucifer, you are saying that God planned for sin and rebellion through Lucifer, and consequently, by creating Adam and Eve, whom God also knew would sin, you are also saying that God planned for sin and rebellion on this planet????

Notice that I am asking the above in the form of a question in an attempt to understand whether or not this is what you are saying.

Daryl, it was Sister White who wrote:

DA 22
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

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}

Tom, you’ll have to substantiate this way of reading her comment, because I’m not seeing it. The way it reads in 5BC 1128, 1129 the burden of her message is: “Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption.” “Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.”


Did you also explain to your non-Adventist friends that nowhere in the Bible does God admit He only revealed what He hoped would happen, that the inspired record does not reflect God doubting the outcome?


Exactly. Based on the fact 1) she never once said God doubted the outcome, and that 2) everything she wrote about it reflects God knew Jesus would succeed - we have positive proof that He knew Jesus would succeed.


I’m not talking about “everything” else or something God has purposely left vague or unclear. I’m talking about what God has plainly told us, namely, that He knew Jesus would succeed.


Elsewhere you wrote, “God can see every possibility, including what would happen if Jesus succeeded. This is the only possibility we need to know about.” Here is the context:


When I asked, "Why is it that He never once expressed doubt or uncertainty about it?" You answered, "Why would He?" Your answer, coupled with your first answer (i.e., The possibility that Jesus would succeed "is the only possibility we need to know about") implies that God did indeed doubt it, but that He simply chose not to reveal it.

“Not capable” is misleading. It would be more accurate to say, God created angels “capable of appreciating the wisdom and benevolence of His character and the justice of His requirements, and with full liberty to yield or to withhold obedience.” Making them any other way was not an option.


Such an option was, obviously, not viable. Why? Because otherwise God would have done it that way. The fact He chose to do it the way He did is positive proof it was the only right way. God doesn’t make mistakes.


Here is how Sister White put it:

DA 22
From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. {DA 22.2}

AG 129
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. {AG 129.2}

Nothing about these quotes, or anything else she wrote, implies God did not know ahead of time if mankind would obey or sin. The SOP “risk” quotes were never intended to mean such a thing. You are trying to force them to mean something they do not address. Your conclusions are unnatural, and unbiblical. Again, nowhere in the Bible is such an idea advocated or intimated, and it is clear the SOP never contradicts the Bible.


Tom, there is nothing circular about it. The fact is, “B” would not have “led to a better [or equal] result”. There was no such option. Why? Because God would have employed it instead. Again, this isn’t based on circular reasoning. It is based on a knowledge of God’s love and character. You seem to be implying that there was a “better” option available to God, but that He chose not employ it. This idea implicates God.


“Certainly it was an option for God not create Lucifer.” Please post an inspired statement that supports your assertion. Since you and I both know that no such statement exists, it is clear you cannot back it up with anything other than your home spun logic, which doesn’t cut it on MSDAOL. The fact God did things the way He did clearly implies it was the one and only right way to do it. Why? Because God is infinitely wise and perfect. He does not make mistakes.

“Since God knew Lucifer would sin, according to your view of things, God must have preferred that sin come about than that it not. This is just simple logic.” Perhaps too simple, as in, lacking sound logic. Consider the following observations:

“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.”

The words “but” and “yet” and “for” in this quote clearly mean God knew ahead of time that man would sin. They cannot mean the opposite. It would make no sense. And yet in spite of knowing it in advance, God chose to go through it. Why? The answer is short and sweet – “…for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.”

Again, this is for theoretical purposes. A probability of 0 or 1 doesn’t need to be estimated. It is a certainty.


We ARE, and this is the whole point of our discussion. The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability. You are saying that the prior probability is 1 because we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), and you are saying I’m wrong when I affirm that the post-hoc probability (even if known beforehand) doesn’t affect the prior probability.
Anyway, I had not suggested we had to use the Bayesian interpretation because we were using post-hoc probability, but because I’m not sure that in the case of Christ we are dealing with events (since frequentists attribute probabilities only to events).


Because Ellen White was speaking of the prior probability, which reflects not the final result, but the process and the difficulties involved in it.
Let’s suppose the United States wins the next World Cup. After we know the final result (the post-hoc probability), this doesn't affect the fact that the probability of the United States winning the World Cup was of just 0.01 (this is just an arbitrary number), which reflects the difficulties involved in the process and the situation of the US team in relation to the other teams.

TE: 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?

MM: He did! Dozens of times throughout the OT and the NT God repeatedly described in minute detail precisely how Jesus would succeed.