That a probability can be 0 or 1 is something you would learn at the beginning of the first class in a probability course.

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

You seem to be confusing statistics with probability. The type of questions I’ve been providing are probability questions. Like the probability of drawing a marble from a hat. If there are three marbles in a hat, all of them blue, the probability of drawing a blue marble is 1. These sorts of problems are very common. There’s no need for estimating. That’s a statistical function.

Quote:
We are NOT dealing with post-hoc probability.

We ARE, and this is the whole point of our discussion.

No, we’re not. My question was, what was the probability before the fact, as of 1000 B.C., that Christ would fail. This is not an after the fact probability question.

The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability.

No, it’s not. Post-hoc is after the fact, not before the fact.

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.

No, this isn’t what I’m saying. If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, there is some reason for that. For example, perhaps you know that the top card of a deck of cards is the Ace of Spades, so the probability of that card being dealt first is 1, not 1 in 52. Or perhaps you know that a die will come up 1 before it happens, based on the angle of the die, and the way it’s rolled, and so forth. These underlying realities allow the probability to be accurately determined, before the event has occurred. These underlying realities exist independent of one’s foreknowledge. To judge these respective probabilities as 1 in 52, or 1 in 6, is based on ignorance of the facts.

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).

The event is that Christ would pass through life without failing. The word “event” is a mathematical term.

Quote:
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.

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.

If the process has risk, then the final result has risk. Similarly, if there is no risk in the final result, there is no risk in the process.

For example, if one speaks of the risk that a goaltender will give up a goal, if there is no risk of a goal being scored during the game (the process), then there is no risk in the final result. Conversely, if one can assert that the final result would end up with a goal being scored by the other team, then there was no risk in the game itself that a goal would be scored.

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.

It's ironic that one who uses Ellen White so much would be so quick to set her aside in favor of Scripture when she doesn't serve the desired purpose. Usually you just cite here, and it's "end of story."

Tom, just because I see it differently than you do it does not mean I am setting aside the SOP. That is an unfair characterization.

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.

According to the view I am defending yes, it would be post-hoc, since God sees future events as past.


The problem is trying to apply probability, which is a human concept, to spiritual truths. If the prior probability of something happening is 0 (like, for instance, in the case of pregnancy without a masculine cell), there is no formula I know of in the probability theory which could give 100% chance of the event happening, even if you know the outcome beforehand.


This can be very tricky. You have to distinguish between the risks involved in the process (the process itself may be risky) and the risk involved in the outcome. Living is dangerous. Provided that you don’t live in the last generation, what is the risk that you will die? 100%. And what is the risk in relation to the outcome? 0.
If you know the outcome beforehand, this means that there is no risk that the final result will change (since you already know it), but this does not prevent the process from being risky.
In the case of Christ, what was the risk involved in the process? Facing all the threats posed to Him. What was the risk involved in the final result? None, because God foresaw that He would overcome all the threats.

Speaking of the temptations, it is interesting to note that Ellen White speaks of Christ as “capable of yielding to temptations”, and she speaks about “the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations.” Webster says that “liable implies exposure or susceptibility to something undesirable.” Christ was susceptible to temptations and capable of yielding to them, like all other human beings.

“Our Lord's trial and test and proving shows that He could yield to these temptations, else the battle was all a farce. ... As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. ... Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 181, 182}

Tom, did you overlook this post?

Quote:
R:The fact that God knew that Jesus wouldn’t sin is post-hoc probability.

T: No, it’s not. Post-hoc is after the fact, not before the fact.

According to the view I am defending yes, it would be post-hoc, since God sees future events as past.

That doesn’t matter in regards to my question. I just asked, what is the probability Christ would fail before the fact? By your logic, if I asked the question, what is the probability of a fair coin coming up heads, you would respond that this is a post-hoc probability problem, since God sees future events as past. In fact, there would be no such thing as a probability problem which isn’t post-hoc.
Again, my question was simply, as of 1000 B.C., before the fact, what was the probability that Christ would fail? Not post-hoc. Just like a coin flip question.

Quote:
If you know the outcome of an event before it happens, there is some reason for that.

The problem is trying to apply probability, which is a human concept, to spiritual truths.

The same thing could be said about logic. Logic is a human concept. But this is besides the point. We were discussing probability on its own terms, and you made several statements which are incorrect. Before getting to some of the more involved ones, I was trying to establish a foundation on which they could be discussed. Without a foundation, such as that an event can have a probability of between 0 and 1 of occurring, and an understanding of how probabilities are calculated, there’s no way I can even go through the pregnancy examples you gave.
The statement that if you know the outcome and event before it happens, doesn’t affect a probability of an event, is simply wrong. Probabilities are always set according to the knowledge that you have of the event. For example, if you know that the Ace of Spades is the top card of a deck of cards, you can assert that the next card dealt will be the Ace of Spades with probability 1. If you don’t have this knowledge, the probability is 1/52. One’s knowledge of an event affects the probability, and affects risk. It is because of this fact that insider trading is illegal.

If the prior probability of something happening is 0 (like, for instance, in the case of pregnancy without a masculine cell), there is no formula I know of in the probability theory which could give 100% chance of the event happening, even if you know the outcome beforehand.

Before I can discuss this with you intelligently, we need to have an agreement as to some basic things, which I lined out in a previous post. There were three that I mentioned. One is the definition of probability, two was how the probability of an event is calculated, and three is that these things are not private opinions that I hold. I am not presenting “my understanding” of probability, or “my interpretation” or “my definition.”

Quote:
If the process has risk, then the final result has risk. Similarly, if there is no risk in the final result, there is no risk in the process.

This can be very tricky. You have to distinguish between the risks involved in the process (the process itself may be risky) and the risk involved in the outcome.

I don’t believe you are analyzing this correctly. Apply this to the sports idea I gave. If there is risk of a shutout in the game, there is risk in the final result. Conversely, if the final result has no risk of shutout, there is no chance a goal could be scored during the game.

Pick any example you want, which has an event which can be clearly quantified, and you’ll see that what I asserted is correct. If the process has risk, so does the final result. If the final result has no risk, then neither did the process. Since the process determines the final result, there is no way to disconnect these. To assert risk in one, is to assert risk in the other.

Living is dangerous. Provided that you don’t live in the last generation, what is the risk that you will die? 100%.

If your name doesn’t start with “E”.

And what is the risk in relation to the outcome? 0.
If you know the outcome beforehand, this means that there is no risk that the final result will change (since you already know it), but this does not prevent the process from being risky.

Please take no offense, but this doesn’t make any sense. Apply this to some specific example. For example, what is the “risk” of drawing 5 aces in a normal deck of cards? It is 0. This is equivalent to asserting that there is no event which can result in a fifth Ace being dealt. Since there is no risk in the process (there is no “a fifth Ace is dealt” event), there is no risk in the final outcome (you can’t be dealt 5 aces from a fifth deck).

You are asserting that there is risk in the process (there is an “a fifth Ace is dealt” event), but not in the final result (you can be dealt 5 Aces). This isn’t logically consistent. If there is the risky event in the process, then the final result will exhibit that risk.

To translate this to Christ, if there is risk in the process, then there exists an event such that Christ fails. We’ll call this E. E is the event “Christ fails”. The final process is P, which is “Christ has failed.” If E exists, then so does P. You can’t logically assert that E exists, but P does not (which is what you are asserting), because E results in P.

In the case of Christ, what was the risk involved in the process? Facing all the threats posed to Him. What was the risk involved in the final result? None, because God foresaw that He would overcome all the threats.

This argument applies just as much to the process as to the final result. If you can assert there is no risk to the final process (No “P” as defined previously), then you can equally assert, by exactly the same logic, that there is no “E”. In other words, there is no risk in the process, because God foresaw that there was no “Christ fails” event.

Speaking of the temptations, it is interesting to note that Ellen White speaks of Christ as “capable of yielding to temptations”, and she speaks about “the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations.” Webster says that “liable implies exposure or susceptibility to something undesirable.” Christ was susceptible to temptations and capable of yielding to them, like all other human beings.

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

“Our Lord's trial and test and proving shows that He could yield to these temptations, else the battle was all a farce. ... As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. A human body, a human mind, with all the peculiar properties, He was bone, brain, and muscle. A man of our flesh, He was compassed with the weakness of humanity. The circumstances of His life were of that character that He was exposed to all the inconveniences that belong to men, not in wealth, not in ease, but in poverty and want and humiliation. ... Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan's temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. ... To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.” {16MR 181, 182}

My comment was not based on how you see things, but on what you are doing. I've never taken the tack you are taking. You prefer using the Spirit of Prophecy to discuss issues, so I have discussed things according to your preference. When things have been presented with which you disagree, you say that words mean something different than they normally mean, and ask, "Where in Scripture does it say such and such?"

When you use the Spirit of Prophecy to quote something, you do so with the understanding that it is authoritative, and ends the discussion, proving the point. But when I do the same, you ask for more demonstration, something from Scripture.

What Ellen White writes is so clear, why do you need more? You accept her as an authoritative source. Your actions ring hollow. They would ring hollow even if you agreed with me.

It's that you disagree with me that I take issue with, but your means of proceeding with a discussion.

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.

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. The implication is that God preferred a world with sin to one without sin. Why?

This is my question.

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!

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?

Do you remember why you asked that?
You had said (post # 88056):



To which I replied:

“Again, He could have sinned, but God foreknew He would be victorious. Whenever Ellen White speaks of risk, she is obviously referring to the temptations of Christ and to the issue of the great controversy, and neither was a farce.”

To which you replied:



To which I replied:

“Again, by asking this you are concerned with the final result, while Ellen White was concerned with the threat posed to Christ. If the conflict was real, the threat was real.”

To which you replied:



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


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.