MM: 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.

TE: MM, this argument is completely circular. You make a circular argument, and then assert that it's not. You're asserting that it isn't doesn't make is any less circular.

MM: It would be circular except for the fact we’re talking about God, not humans who are imperfect.

TE: God had to options, A and B. In option A, Lucifer is created, and sin results. In option B, Lucifer is not created, and sin does not result. I am asking you why God preferred option A to B.

MM: Says who? Please post an inspired statement that supports your assumption. Where does it say, If God had chosen not to create Lucifer sin would not have arisen?

TE: The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why? This is my question.

MM: Your question assumes too much to be a legitimate question. Again, please post an inspired statement to support your premise, your assumption. To answer your question is to entertain an illegitimate, unsubstantiated premise, an uninspired assumption.

To answer your question, though, I prefer to believe the truth about God: He did not prefer a world with sin over one without it. With this truth as a starting point, I am now prepared to explore why God chose to create Lucifer in spite of the fact He knew ahead of time that he would end up sinning and dying and influencing millions to do the same. The only inspired insight I have found so far that addresses the question is the following one:

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}

TE: You, so far, have refused to even try to answer the question, instead you are saying that B wasn't an option, because if it were, then God would have done it. You have argued that A is better, because God chose it. This is circular!

MM: Knowing what I know about God, about how wise and perfect He is, about how kind and loving He is, I have no reason to believe He purposely chose not to go with an option that was “better” than the one He chose. There is nothing circular about that. I know God went with the one and only right way. Even if there were other legitimate options, as you assert, I know in my heart that God chose the best one.

1. Do you agree that of all the “options” that God chose to implement the best one?

2. Do really believe He did what He did not knowing if FMAs would sin or obey?

Please address these questions with your answers, not with why you think I am wrong or illogical or whatever. Thank you.

TE: Let's make the assumption that A and B are of equal value as options. That way God is not constrained to choose an inferior option, but to choose among equal options. Why would God create Lucifer, knowing He would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, and have a universe without sin?

MM: Again, what makes you think sin would not have arisen if God had chosen not to create Lucifer? This assumption requires too much speculation to entertain. However, I believe God’s options were two: 1) To create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, or 2) Not to create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem. Now, why did God chose to go with option number 1? Was it because He “preferred” a world with sin over one without it? The question is basically blasphemous, right! I believe the answer Sister White gave makes sense: “For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.” Can you think of a better answer?

MM: 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.

TE: MM, this argument is completely circular. You make a circular argument, and then assert that it's not. You're asserting that it isn't doesn't make is any less circular.

MM: It would be circular except for the fact we’re talking about God, not humans who are imperfect.

What makes an argument circular is not dependent upon the subject being discussed, but upon the person making the argument. You can, and have, made a circular argument involving God just as well as one involving any other subject.

TE: God had two options, A and B. In option A, Lucifer is created, and sin results. In option B, Lucifer is not created, and sin does not result. I am asking you why God preferred option A to B.

MM: Says who?

Please post an inspired statement that supports your assumption. Where does it say, If God had chosen not to create Lucifer sin would not have arisen?

It doesn’t matter for the argument. Just assume God didn’t create any angels who would have sinned, and answer the question.

TE: The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why? This is my question.

MM: Your question assumes too much to be a legitimate question. Again, please post an inspired statement to support your premise, your assumption. To answer your question is to entertain an illegitimate, unsubstantiated premise, an uninspired assumption.

To answer your question, though, I prefer to believe the truth about God: He did not prefer a world with sin over one without it.

Then why didn’t He simply choose not to create beings that would sin?

With this truth as a starting point, I am now prepared to explore why God chose to create Lucifer in spite of the fact He knew ahead of time that he would end up sinning and dying and influencing millions to do the same. The only inspired insight I have found so far that addresses the question is the following one:

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}

This doesn’t answer the question as to why God preferred to create a being that would sin over not doing so. Was God dependent upon sin in order to carry out His eternal purpose?

TE: You, so far, have refused to even try to answer the question, instead you are saying that B wasn't an option, because if it were, then God would have done it. You have argued that A is better, because God chose it. This is circular!

MM: Knowing what I know about God, about how wise and perfect He is, about how kind and loving He is, I have no reason to believe He purposely chose not to go with an option that was “better” than the one He chose. There is nothing circular about that.

I didn’t say there was a better option. I’m using your assumptions here, regarding how reality is. I am asking why God would prefer to create Lucifer, knowing he was destined to sin.

I know God went with the one and only right way. Even if there were other legitimate options, as you assert, I know in my heart that God chose the best one.

Of course, God chose the best one. I am not arguing that God made a poor choice, but that you have assumptions which are not consistent with the choice that God make. I’m arguing that your assumptions are wrong, not God’s choice. You are being circular in maintaining your assumptions, and defending them, by stating that God must, by definition, have made the right choice. Therefore your assumptions are correct. This is how you are reasoning. This is what is circular.

1. Do you agree that of all the “options” that God chose to implement the best one?

I would assert there were no better options available.

2. Do really believe He did what He did not knowing if FMAs would sin or obey?

God never created any being knowing, or intending, or planning, or expecting that they would sin. The chapter “The Origin of Evil” speaks to this, in “The Great Controversy”. God created millions of worlds that never sinned. There is no reason why this one should have. There is no reason Lucifer should have. It wasn’t necessary. It wasn’t inevitable. That it happened is a mystery.

Please address these questions with your answers, not with why you think I am wrong or illogical or whatever. Thank you.

TE: Let's make the assumption that A and B are of equal value as options. That way God is not constrained to choose an inferior option, but to choose among equal options. Why would God create Lucifer, knowing He would sin, rather than refrain from doing so, and have a universe without sin?

MM: Again, what makes you think sin would not have arisen if God had chosen not to create Lucifer?

Again, it doesn’t matter to the question. Just stipulate that God had chosen not to create any angels that would sin.

This assumption requires too much speculation to entertain.

No, it doesn’t. It’s an entirely reasonable question that millions have asked for centuries. There’s even a term, “theodicy,” which deals with answers to this question.

However, I believe God’s options were two: 1) To create FMAs and deal with the sin problem, or 2) Not to create FMAs and not deal with the sin problem.

There’s a third option. Create FMA’s that wouldn’t sin. Then there would be no sin problem to deal with.

Now, why did God chose to go with option number 1? Was it because He “preferred” a world with sin over one without it? The question is basically blasphemous, right! I believe the answer Sister White gave makes sense: “For the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness.” Can you think of a better answer?

Yes, I can give a better answer than what you are giving.

Tom,

Did you overlook my post (just above Mike's)?

So, before we proceed, we must make clear what we are going to discuss. Is it God’s foreknowledge, or what? Should we put God in the picture or take Him out of the picture?

Leave God out of the picture. Was the probability that Christ would fail, as of 1000 B.C. greater than 0? Or 0?

If you begin to discuss something, then change the focus of the discussion, we will simply be talking past each other.

What you are saying has logical problems. I'm trying to get you to see this. I'm proceeding on a point by point basis. We need to get agreement on some fundamental points. So we'll start with the above question, leaving God out of the question.

One other point I've been trying to make, and I need to know if you understand it, is that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens *does* impact the probability of the event. Do you understand this? If not, we should discuss this.

What I said was that God was 100% certain that Christ wouldn't sin because He saw the event happen, which is post-hoc probability. But this doesn’t affect the prior probability. Is there something wrong in this reasoning?

Yes. Foreknowledge is not post-hoc. Before the fact is not the same as after the fact. The future is fundamentally different from the past. The past cannot change. It is determined. The future is not determined (unless you wish to postulate this, in which case we could discuss it). It is the fact that the past is determined that makes post hoc probability what it is. Basically seeing an event that will happen is not the same as looking back at an event that already happened. The difference is not in the seeing of the event, but in the fact of the event itself having happened or not. But this is a bit of a different subject, which we could come back to if desired.

Quote:
Or, to put it more simply, Christ was tempted in all points as we are.

No. What she is saying is that Christ was capable of being tempted, capable of sinning, liable or susceptible to temptation and sin, which of course suggests physical, mental and spiritual capability.

He wasn't just capable of being tempted in all points as we are, but He actually was tempted in all points as we are. She makes that point (as does Paul, the reason he gives for why we can go to Him as our high priest with our problems). We can overcome our temptations because Christ overcame those same temptations. That’s a very common theme in her writings. This seems like it should be on another thread.

Leaving God out of the picture, of course the probability was greater than 0.


Yes, if you are concerned with the final result; but this *doesn’t* change the prior probability, which has to do with the process and with the group to which the individual belongs. Let’s see an example.

What is the prior probability of a woman having quadruplets? 1 in 704,969, that is, 0.0014. Suppose that that woman undergoes an ultrasound exam, and the ultrasound exam shows that she is pregnant of quadruplets. I understand that now you would have to calculate the posterior probability, which is a revised probability that takes into account new available information. To calculate it, you would have to use Bayes’ theorem, which would not give you 100% probability.

But, for practical purposes, let’s say that her chance of having quadruplets is now 100%, having in view this new information. This posterior probability in no way invalidates the prior probability, which shows the difficulty involved in the process – that is, in 704,969 women this particular woman was the only one to have quadruplets. The prior probability is always true. It’s the prior probability that characterizes the event as unusual or exceptional. For instance, in the case of pregnancy after menopause or pregnancy without a masculine cell, the prior probability is 0. If, because of your faith you consider the word of God as a relevant factor for your posterior probability (and that’s the reason why I thought the Bayesian interpretation should be used), this in no way changes the prior probability, which shows that these were extraordinary events.


I disagree. If God saw the future, it will not change, just like the past (which, however, is different from cannot change). But we have already discussed this, and there’s no need to start it all over again.


Therefore there was a real threat, a real danger, a real peril, a real risk.

Before you ask, let's discuss a bit this subject of risk. When we are speaking about the foreknowledge of God, of course there is no risk that what God foresaw won't happen. This has nothing to do with the process being risky or not.

Let's take the example of the woman who is pregnant of quadruplets. Let's say God foresees that she will give birth to four children, all of them alive. Is there any risk that this result will change? None whatsoever. But the process itself - pregnancy of quadruplets - is risky. Thus, all the children will be born with low weight, are liable to have sequelas, and may even die just after birth.

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.

Leave God out of the picture. Was the probability that Christ would fail, as of 1000 B.C. greater than 0? Or 0?

Leaving God out of the picture, of course the probability was greater than 0.

Why "of course"? There are many who disagree with this (the idea that Christ could have failed).

What does is mean to assert that the probability was greater than 0 that Christ would fail?

Quote:
One other point I've been trying to make, and I need to know if you understand it, is that knowing the outcome of an event before it happens *does* impact the probability of the event.

Yes, if you are concerned with the final result; but this *doesn’t* change the prior probability, which has to do with the process and with the group to which the individual belongs. Let’s see an example.

What is the prior probability of a woman having quadruplets? 1 in 704,969, that is, 0.0014. Suppose that that woman undergoes an ultrasound exam, and the ultrasound exam shows that she is pregnant of quadruplets. I understand that now you would have to calculate the posterior probability, which is a revised probability that takes into account new available information. To calculate it, you would have to use Bayes’ theorem, which would not give you 100% probability.

Bayes theorem has nothing to do with this. It’s much simpler than this. Before you knew anything about the woman’s condition, the probability was 1 in 704,969. After seeing she was pregnant with quadruplets, the probability was 1. It just like the question, what is the probability that a card dealt will be an Ace of Space? It is 1 in 52. But if you know that the Ace of Spades in on the top, then it’s one. If someone were to tell you that an Ace were on the top, but not which one, it would be 1 in 4. One’s knowledge of the outcome of an event affects the probability.

But, for practical purposes, let’s say that her chance of having quadruplets is now 100%, having in view this new information. This posterior probability in no way invalidates the prior probability, which shows the difficulty involved in the process – that is, in 704,969 women this particular woman was the only one to have quadruplets. The prior probability is always true. It’s the prior probability that characterizes the event as unusual or exceptional. For instance, in the case of pregnancy after menopause or pregnancy without a masculine cell, the prior probability is 0. If, because of your faith you consider the word of God as a relevant factor for your posterior probability (and that’s the reason why I thought the Bayesian interpretation should be used), this in no way changes the prior probability, which shows that these were extraordinary events.

Bayes has nothing to do with this. The prior probability is based on knowledge that one has of an event before the fact. If you have more knowledge, that changes the probability. If you know with certainty that an event will occur, the probability is 1.
Here’s a Bayes type question. Say there are two rooms of babies. One room (Room #1) has a baby that is a quadruplet, and three which aren’t, and the other (Room #2) has 2 quadruplets and 2 not. You go into a room at random and pick a baby at random. The baby you pick is a qradruplet. What are the chances that the baby came from Room #1?

Quote:
Foreknowledge is not post-hoc. Before the fact is not the same as after the fact. The future is fundamentally different from the past. The past cannot change. It is determined. The future is not determined (unless you wish to postulate this, in which case we could discuss it).

I disagree. If God saw the future, it will not change, just like the past (which, however, is different from cannot change).

If the future will not change, then it is determined, or fixed. This happens before we make any decisions. That means we do not have the ability to choose from multiple choices, because you stated “it will not change.” We only have the *perception* of being able to choose from different options, but not the ability. We have a “free” will which based on ignorance, not on reality.
Another simple way of putting this is that if the future, our future, will not change (which is the case before we come into existence and have made any choices), then the future is determined before we made any decision to determine it. Hence we are not self-determining creatures.

But we have already discussed this, and there’s no need to start it all over again.

It’s never been discussed very carefully. There are logical contradictions involved.

Quote:
He wasn't just capable of being tempted in all points as we are, but He actually was tempted in all points as we are.

Therefore there was a real threat, a real danger, a real peril, a real risk.

Only if He could, in reality, have fallen into temptation, and failed. However, God good knew with 100% certainty that He would not fail, and the future cannot change, then it was not possibility for Christ to actually fail. It’s like if I watch a movie with two teams playing, and offer to bet you which team will win. I “risk” a dollar, but there isn’t any risk involved, because I have seen the movie and know the result.

It cannot be said that “God sent His Son at the risk of failure” if God saw the movie where Christ succeeded. There’s no more risk for God in this instance than there is for my risk of the dollar in the movie I saw.

Here is a formal argument to demonstrate that what you are asserting is false (which is that the final result is certain, yet there is risk attached to the process).

Definition 1. Let B be the final result, that Christ would fail to overcome every temptation. To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 0.

Assertion 1. There is no risk in the final result that Christ would fail to overcome every tempation.

Definition 2. To assert there is risk in the process means that there is some event A such that P(A) > 0, where A represents some failure in the process.

Let B be the event “Christ failed to overcome every temptation in His life.” Let A be the event “Christ failed to overcome _____” where ______ is any specific temptation, say the temptation in the wilderness, where Christ was tempted by Satan. Let us arbitrarily assign this event a probability of x. Can x be > 0?

Let’s assume it is. If x > 0, then P(B) > 0. This contradicts Assertion 1. Therefore, there is no event A such that P(A) > 0. From Definition 2, it follows that there is no risk in the process.

The prior probability is 1:704,969 and the posterior probability is 1 (theoretically; it should be calculated by Bayes’ theorem, taking into consideration also the accuracy of the exam). Did the posterior probability invalidate the prior probability? No. She is the only one among 704,969 women to have quadruplets.

See, for instance, a discussion about the probability of AIDS, and AIDS tests here: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/techInterview/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=2471


No, a fixed future is a future which cannot change – which is different from will not change. We’ve already discussed this and reached no agreement.


It was discussed in detail and we reached no agreement. It’s useless to discuss it again.


Betting is based exactly on the risk involved in the final result. There are no bets about results that are certain.


There must be something wrong in this reasoning. If P(B) = 1, there is no risk to the final result either.

Bayes theorem has nothing to do with this. It’s much simpler than this. Before you knew anything about the woman’s condition, the probability was 1 in 704,969. After seeing she was pregnant with quadruplets, the probability was 1.

The prior probability is 1:704,969 and the posterior probability is 1 (theoretically; it should be calculated by Bayes’ theorem, taking into consideration also the accuracy of the exam). Did the posterior probability invalidate the prior probability? No. She is the only one among 704,969 women to have quadruplets.

I gave you an example involving Bayes which involves quadruplets. What you are talking about above has nothing to do with Bayes.

See, for instance, a discussion about the probability of AIDS, and AIDS tests here: http://discuss.fogcreek.com/techInterview/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=2471

Quote:
If the future will not change, then it is determined, or fixed.

No, a fixed future is a future which cannot change – which is different from will not change. We’ve already discussed this and reached no agreement.

This is just semantical. “Will not” can be used in place of “cannot.” It doesn’t change anything. A fixed future is a future which does not change.

Quote:
It’s like if I watch a movie with two teams playing, and offer to bet you which team will win. I “risk” a dollar, but there isn’t any risk involved, because I have seen the movie and know the result.

Betting is based exactly on the risk involved in the final result. There are no bets about results that are certain.

Because there is no risk. Which is my point. If God's looking at the final result of Christ’s first coming was like watching a movie, there was no risk.

Quote:
Here is a formal argument to demonstrate that what you are asserting is false (which is that the final result is certain, yet there is risk attached to the process).
Definition 1. Let B be the final result, that Christ would fail to overcome every temptation.
To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 0.

There must be something wrong in this reasoning. If P(B) = 1, there is no risk to the final result either.

There’s nothing wrong with the reasoning. How is your assertion here in any way pertinent to the argument? Also, I’m not sure if you’re clear about this, but to assert that P(B) = 1 is to assert that it is certain that Christ would fail.