In the link I provided, a question (from the book Game Theory At Work by James D. Miller) is proposed: You have just taken an AIDS test. You know a lot about how AIDS is transmitted, and, thankfully, you are almost certain that you don’t have the disease. Anything is possible, however, and you estimate that there is a 1/100,000 chance that you have AIDS. The test is 99 percent accurate. You get back your test results, and they are positive. How concerned should you be?

The reply of the author is: Your chance of actually having AIDS after getting the positive test results are only about 1/1,000. This result seems very paradoxical since the test is 99 percent accurate. After getting your tests results, however, you have two pieces of information: the test results and your initial belief that you almost certainly didn’t have AIDS. You don’t lose the second piece of information just because of the positive test results; rather the test results should be used to update your beliefs. These two pieces of information need to be combined. When you (sort of) average the 1/100,000 chance of having AIDS with the 99 percent chance of not having AIDS, you get an approximate 1/1,000 chance of having the disease.

The prevalence of AIDS among the low-risk population is the prior probability and the test results constitute the conditional probability. Both are combined through Bayes’ theorem, which gives the posterior probability. Someone shows the calculations in the last post of the page whose link I provided. But frequentists don’t have the concepts of prior and posterior probability. Perhaps that’s why you are having a problem with these concepts.


It does have implications because of the aspects involved in this. You had said: “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.”
The future is not determined before we make any decisions. It is determined after we have made the decisions, since God foresees them. The prophecy was made that one of the disciples would betray Christ. The fact is that Judas could have chosen otherwise, but God knew He wouldn’t do it.


That’s the point. If God had foreseen that Christ would fail, you would agree that there was risk attached to the process. Yet there would be no risk in relation to the final result. Like in the example I gave previously. If you aren’t living in the last generation and isn’t Enoch or Elijah, the probability that you will die is 1. I think you consider that dying is a risk. But what is the risk in relation to the final result? None.

But frequentists don’t have the concepts of prior and posterior probability. Perhaps that’s why you are having a problem with these concepts.

Why do you think I’m having a problem with any concepts here? I was in a phd program for mathematics. For almost ten years, I made my living dealing with risk calculations. In addition, I studied this specific subject in detail. I passed several exams in the actuarial field dealing with probability and statistics, one of which included Bayes’ theorem.

On the other hand, you apparently took an introductory course in probability in high school. Who do you think is more likely to be more accurately understanding things here?

By the way, I have brought several of your errors, dealing with very fundamental concepts to your attention, none of which you have acknowledged. For example, 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.”
As I pointed out, that a probability can be 0 or 1 is something you would learn at the beginning of the first class in a probability course. To assert “Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree” is to demonstrate a lack of even a basic grasp of the fundamentals. Your response would be similar to the following exchange: “5 is an integer” “Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.”

Quote:
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.

R:It does have implications because of the aspects involved in this. You had said: “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.”

The future is not determined before we make any decisions. It is determined after we have made the decisions, since God foresees them. The prophecy was made that one of the disciples would betray Christ. The fact is that Judas could have chosen otherwise, but God knew He wouldn’t do it.

In order to assert that the future is open to change, it must be possible for someone to do something different than what God has foreseen that person will do. If the future is not open to change, then it is fixed.

Quote:
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.

R:That’s the point. If God had foreseen that Christ would fail, you would agree that there was risk attached to the process. Yet there would be no risk in relation to the final result.

As you have stated things in this hypothesis, there would be risk both in the process and in the final result. How can you assert that there would be no risk in relation to the final result, given that God had foreseen that Christ would fail? The risk would be 100%.

Like in the example I gave previously. If you aren’t living in the last generation and isn’t Enoch or Elijah, the probability that you will die is 1.

This is beside the point, but this assertion isn’t really accurate.

I think you consider that dying is a risk.

Risk depends upon how the given event is defined.

But what is the risk in relation to the final result? None

This is a completely illogical argument. First of all, you need to define your terms. What is the process you are talking about? What is the final process? If the final process is being resurrected, then the process must have to do with being resurrected, not dying. You’re changing horses in midstream here.

If you will consider the formal argument I presented previously, you will see that it is not possible for the process to have risk attached to it, and not the final result.

I’ll present the argument in another way. The probability of failure for a process is the sum of the probabilities of each of the steps which comprise a process. In order for the probability of failure for a process to be > 0, there must be some step in the process which has a probability > 0. The probability of failure for the final result must be greater than or equal to the probability of failure for that step of the process, so much be greater than 0.

Here’s a specific example. Define the process to be the rolling of a die 100 times. Failure for the final result is defined as rolling a 1 somewhere in these 100 trials. If we assert the probability of failure for the final result is 0, then it must follow that in none of the 100 trials could a 1 have been rolled. Hence the probability of the failure during the process is 0 as well.

In regards to Christ’s life, if the final result is defined as Christ’s having failed to overcome temptation, then there must have been some temptation of which the probability of failure was greater than 0. The probability of failure for the final result must be greater than or equal to the probability of failure for that one given temptation.

In short, if there is risk attached to a process, there must be risk attached to some step of the process. The risk of a final result must be greater than or equal to the risk of any given step of a process. Again, relating back to Christ, to give a specific example, the probability of His having failed to overcome every temptation must be greater than or equal to the probability of His overcoming the devil in the wilderness. So if there was any possibility that Christ would be overcome by the devil in the wilderness, the probability of the final result must be greater than or equal to the possibility of that failure.

I agree.


Tom, your conclusion does not agree with the following inspired insights:

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}


Asking such a question assumes God made a mistake. I prefer to assume God did the right thing and seek to understand how and why it was right.


What? Just a few paragraphs you wrote, “I would assert there were no better options available.” Why are you now suggesting there was a third option? Since your “third option” isn’t “better” it really wasn’t an option, was it?


I didn’t give a reason. I quoted the reason given in the SOP. Do you agree with it?

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

TE: I would assert there were no better options available.

I agree.
Quote:
2. Do you really believe He did what He did not knowing if FMAs would sin or obey?

TE: 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.

Tom, your conclusion does not agree with the following inspired insights:

Yes my assertion agrees with inspiration. To know the right view on a question like this, one needs to consider ALL the data. Not just one statement. For example, if you read the chapter in the Great Controversy, on “The Origin of Evil,” that agrees with the viewpoint I’ve been sharing. Plus Education 113. Especially this latter is a good one to read in conjunction with the DA 22 quote.
If God created Lucifer knowing that he would sin (not could, but would), then God would be responsible for setting in motion a course of events which would make sin inevitable, which contradicts both what we know to be true of His character, and “The Origin of Evil” chapter I referenced above.

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}

Quote:
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.

TE: 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.

Asking such a question assumes God made a mistake. I prefer to assume God did the right thing and seek to understand how and why it was right.

Quote:
MM: 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.

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

What? Just a few paragraphs you wrote, “I would assert there were no better options available.” Why are you now suggesting there was a third option? Since your “third option” isn’t “better” it really wasn’t an option, was it?

Certainly you are not seriously suggesting that God was incapable of refraining from creating beings who would sin. He could just look ahead, see who they are, and not create them. My question to you is WHY did God not do this. For you to say that God always chooses the best option is not answering the question. My question is WHY is the option to create beings who would sin better than the option to not create them.

Quote:
MM: 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?

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

I didn’t give a reason. I quoted the reason given in the SOP. Do you agree with it?

I’m disagreeing with you, not her. I don’t think her intent was at all close to what you are thinking. That is to say, I think you have completely misunderstood her intent. She is not saying that the Lord needed sin to establish His throne in righteousness, but that He saw the possibility of its occurrence, and would establish His throne in righteousness in spite of sin.

If you disagree with the idea that sin was a possibility, instead thinking of it as a certainty, then you need to explain why God would create the universe in such a way that sin was certain to occur.

There are millions upon millions of worlds that know no sin, in spite of its having emerged. God could have just created these worlds, for example.

Was sin a part of God’s plan? Did He need it to establish His throne in righteousness?

TE: If God created Lucifer knowing that he would sin (not could, but would), then God would be responsible for setting in motion a course of events which would make sin inevitable, which contradicts both what we know to be true of His character, and “The Origin of Evil” chapter I referenced above.

MM: This theory concludes God did not know ahead of time with certainty if sin would arise with its train of woe and misery. This theory implies God is an incompetent being. It also means we cannot trust what He says about the future. Thus, Nahum 1:9 is wishful thinking at best. Fortunately, for us, this theory is not supported in the Bible or the SOP. If it were, it would say so plainly. God is not a gifted guesser; He is omniscient - knowing the end from the beginning with 100% accuracy.

………………………………

TE: Certainly you are not seriously suggesting that God was incapable of refraining from creating beings who would sin. …

MM: God cannot sin. Do you agree? All imperfection is sin. Do you agree? I’m sure you do, thus you cannot believe God would do anything that was less than perfect. “Jesus was free from all sin and error; there was not a trace of imperfection in His life or character.” (7BC 929)

Based on this foundation truth, that God cannot do anything less than perfect, we are able to conclude that whatever God has done, or will do, is perfect. This truth protects us from wondering if God has made a mistake or if He will ever make a mistake in the future.

Was God “incapable” of doing things differently than He has done them? Such a question ignores the fact God cannot do anything less than perfect, that whatever He has done was perfect, that it could not have been improved upon, that anything different would have been les than perfect.

“…was [God] incapable of refraining from creating beings who would sin.” Again, such a question is based on blasphemy. It implies God did something wrong, or that He is capable of doing something less than perfect. Imperfection is sin. Can God sin? The answer is obvious: NO!!!

…………………………………

TE: … He could just look ahead, see who they are, and not create them. …

MM: Please post an inspired statement to support this accusation. If you cannot substantiate this idea with a plain “Thus saith the Lord”, why, then, are you acting as if it is true? It is only true if God says so. Assuming it is true, for the sake of discussion, is a slippery slope. It has no basis in truth. Can we start off with an untruth and end up with the truth?

…………………………………..

TE: … My question to you is WHY did God not do this. For you to say that God always chooses the best option is not answering the question. My question is WHY is the option to create beings who would sin better than the option to not create them.

MM: Rejecting, or ignoring, the truth about God is never a safe way to arrive at the truth. The truth is – God cannot sin. All imperfection is sin. Therefore, what God has done, or will do, is perfect. Perfection cannot be divided or diluted. There cannot be more than one perfect way to do it the one and only right way. Otherwise, perfection ceases to be perfection.

Your question assumes God did not know ahead of time with 100% certainty if sin would arise among FMAs. This assumption is wrong. Therefore, any question that assumes God does not know the future like He knows the past cannot lead to the truth. You do not have a truthful, inspired answer to your own question – “WHY is the option to create beings who would sin better than the option to not create them.”

You do not even believe your question is legitimate because you do not believe God knew ahead of time with 100% certainty if sin would arise. So, you are asking the question simply to disprove the idea that God did indeed know ahead of time with 100% certainty that sin would arise. But he truth is, God chose to create them anyhow because He “would establish His throne in righteousness”, which is the only inspired reason given.

Can you truly, honestly read the following inspired insight and insist it means God did not know ahead of time if man would sin? Do you agree that the language she chose to employ in this single passage, excluding whatever else you think she meant elsewhere, means God knew man would sin? If this were the only thing she ever said or implied about it, do you agree it means God knew man would sin, and that He chose to create them anyhow because He “would establish His throne in righteousness”?

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: She is not saying that the Lord needed sin to establish His throne in righteousness, but that He saw the possibility of its occurrence, and would establish His throne in righteousness in spite of sin.

MM: If sin arising was only a “possibility” and not a “certainty” then the phrase, quoted above, “yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose” makes no sense. She did not say, “The possibility of man’s defection, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent …” There is nothing about this inspired insight that implies God did not know ahead of time if sin would arise.

By your overreaction I see you misunderstood what I said. I just meant that if you are a frequentist, you are having a problem with what I’m saying about prior and posterior probabilities because you don’t agree with the concepts – you see things from a different perspective. Please read again what I said having this in view.


Of course I’m perfectly aware that the numbers 0 and 1 are used in the probability theory. What I said is that, in my opinion, rigorously speaking a certainty is not a probability, since it involves no randomness, and by definition probability involves randomness.


I disagree. The future is open to change, but God knows all the changes that will take place.


According to your own argument, by saying this you are saying that Christ would have to fall into every single temptation.


What if we stated the argument with a slight difference:

Let B be the final result, that Christ would be victorious over all temptations. To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 1.


I agree. What I’m saying is that every temptation poses a risk, otherwise it is a farce. To be victorious in a given temptation, Christ had to overcome all the risks involved in it (believing Satan’s lies, losing faith in God, having His own way, etc.). So, what I’m saying is that, for a given temptation, there was no risk* that Christ wouldn’t overcome all the risks involved in it. Therefore, there was no final risk that Christ wouldn’t overcome all the risks involved in the several temptations.

* From God's perspective

Why do you think I’m having a problem with any concepts here? I was in a phd program for mathematics...



I didn’t overreact, I just reacted. Please be charitable in the way you characterize things.
If you write that someone is “having a problem with the concepts,” any English speaking person would have understood what you wrote the way I did. You could have written something like “as a frequentist, you may see things differently” or “as a frequentist, you may disagree” or something like that, and that would have been clear. Why not accept responsibility for the miscommunication rather than labeling my response as an overreaction?

The arguments I’ve been presenting have been from a probabilistic standpoint, not a statistical one. In other words, I haven’t been presenting things from a frequentist standpoint, so your assertion is rather odd, as it should have been clear from what I have been writing that I have not been writing from that standpoint.

Quote:
To assert “Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree” is to demonstrate a lack of even a basic grasp of the fundamentals.

Of course I’m perfectly aware that the numbers 0 and 1 are used in the probability theory. What I said is that, in my opinion, rigorously speaking a certainty is not a probability, since it involves no randomness, and by definition probability involves randomness.

As I pointed out, rigorously speaking, this is incorrect. You made this assertion based on the meaning of the word “probable” from Webster’s. However, this has nothing to do with probability theory. What you asserted is simply wrong, like responding to the statement “5 is an integer” with “although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree.”

Quote:
In order to assert that the future is open to change, it must be possible for someone to do something different than what God has foreseen that person will do.

I disagree. The future is open to change, but God knows all the changes that will take place.

You’re not responding to what I asserted. I said to assert the future is open to change is to assert it must be possible for someone to do something different than what God has foreseen that person will do. “Agent” would be a better choice of words than “person,” as the agent taking action need not be human, nor even sentient.

If the future is open to change, it must be possible for some action to be taken which would change it.

Quote:
As you have stated things in this hypothesis, there would be risk both in the process and in the final result. How can you assert that there would be no risk in relation to the final result, given that God had foreseen that Christ would fail? The risk would be 100%.

According to your own argument, by saying this you are saying that Christ would have to fall into every single temptation.

If you’re going to say something like this, please back it up in some way. I can’t even respond to it, because there is no place to start. I have no idea whatsoever what you are thinking. A short answer is, no, my own argument doesn’t assert this. You’ve evidently misunderstood something somewhere, but without your providing some basis for your thinking here, I have no idea what.

Quote:
If you will consider the formal argument I presented previously, you will see that it is not possible for the process to have risk attached to it, and not the final result.

What if we stated the argument with a slight difference:

Let B be the final result, that Christ would be victorious over all temptations. To assert that there is no risk to the final result is to assert that P(B) = 1.

The argument flows better the way I presented it. You could state it the way you are suggesting, which is basically saying if it was certain that Christ would succeed, then there was no risk He would fail.

Quote:
The probability of failure for a process is the sum of the probabilities of each of the steps which comprise a process

I agree. What I’m saying is that every temptation poses a risk, otherwise it is a farce. To be victorious in a given temptation, Christ had to overcome all the risks involved in it (believing Satan’s lies, losing faith in God, having His own way, etc.). So, what I’m saying is that, for a given temptation, there was no risk* that Christ wouldn’t overcome all the risks involved in it.

This means that there is no risk that Christ would fail any temptation.

Therefore, there was no final risk that Christ wouldn’t overcome all the risks involved in the several temptations.

And no risk that Christ wouldn’t overcome every temptation. In other words, there is no risk attached either to any of the steps or the final result. The probability of failure, for any given temptation, was 0, just like the probability of failure for the final result is 0.

* From God's perspective

Regarding "from God's perspective," that doesn't add anything, does it? God's perspective is simply truth, isn't it? So couldn't we say, "in truth" as readily as saying "from God's perspective"?

TE: If God created Lucifer knowing that he would sin (not could, but would), then God would be responsible for setting in motion a course of events which would make sin inevitable, which contradicts both what we know to be true of His character, and “The Origin of Evil” chapter I referenced above.

MM: This theory concludes God did not know ahead of time with certainty if sin would arise with its train of woe and misery. This theory implies God is an incompetent being.

One could just as easily assert that your view presents God is a sadistic tyrant. Such assertions add nothing to the discussion. Also, your assertion is wrong. The theory has to do with the future, not God’s vision of it. As I’ve pointed out many times now, probably 100, God sees the future perfectly. Where we disagree is not regarding how well God sees the future, but regarding the essence of the future. Our disagreement is ontological, not epistemological

It also means we cannot trust what He says about the future.

By no means! God sees the future perfectly.

Thus, Nahum 1:9 is wishful thinking at best.

By no means! God has demonstrated the ability to foretell things. He is omniscient. We have no reason to doubt Him.

Fortunately, for us, this theory is not supported in the Bible or the SOP. If it were, it would say so plainly. God is not a gifted guesser; He is omniscient - knowing the end from the beginning with 100% accuracy.

It does say so plainly. It says, “Christ could have fallen. He could have sinned.” It says, “Remember, Christ risked all.” It says, “Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.” It says, “God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.” These are very plain statements.

………………………………

TE: Certainly you are not seriously suggesting that God was incapable of refraining from creating beings who would sin. …

MM: God cannot sin. Do you agree? All imperfection is sin. Do you agree? I’m sure you do, thus you cannot believe God would do anything that was less than perfect. “Jesus was free from all sin and error; there was not a trace of imperfection in His life or character.” (7BC 929)

Based on this foundation truth, that God cannot do anything less than perfect, we are able to conclude that whatever God has done, or will do, is perfect. This truth protects us from wondering if God has made a mistake or if He will ever make a mistake in the future.

Was God “incapable” of doing things differently than He has done them? Such a question ignores the fact God cannot do anything less than perfect, that whatever He has done was perfect, that it could not have been improved upon, that anything different would have been les than perfect.

“…was [God] incapable of refraining from creating beings who would sin.” Again, such a question is based on blasphemy. It implies God did something wrong, or that He is capable of doing something less than perfect. Imperfection is sin. Can God sin? The answer is obvious: NO!!!
You’re simply avoiding the question by arguing in a circle. Everything God does is perfect, so He must have chosen the best option, so He couldn’t do anything different. WHY is the option God chose better than the alternative? *That’s my whole question?*

WHY did God choose to create a universe with sin in it instead of one without sin?

WHY?

I understand you believe God chose the best option, and, of course that’s true, since God is perfect. There’s no need to spend paragraph after paragraph making this simple point, which isn’t what I am addressing. I’m not asking IF the choice God made was better than the alternative, but WHY?


…………………………………

TE: … He could just look ahead, see who they are, and not create them. …

MM: Please post an inspired statement to support this accusation.

Accusation? How do you get accusation out of this? I’m just pointing out one way, among many, that God could have brought this about if the future were as you think it is.

If you cannot substantiate this idea with a plain “Thus saith the Lord”, why, then, are you acting as if it is true?

Are you wishing to say that God is impotent to act any differently than He did? Why are you limiting God?

It is only true if God says so. Assuming it is true, for the sake of discussion, is a slippery slope. It has no basis in truth. Can we start off with an untruth and end up with the truth?

It is only true that God has the ability to do something differently than He did if He said so? Why don’t you follow your own advice? Where is a “thus saith the Lord” which says what you are asserting? Show me where there’s a “thus saith the Lord” that says that God did not have the ability to act differently than He did, that God was limited.

…………………………………..

TE: … My question to you is WHY did God not do this. For you to say that God always chooses the best option is not answering the question. My question is WHY is the option to create beings who would sin better than the option to not create them.

MM: Rejecting, or ignoring, the truth about God is never a safe way to arrive at the truth. The truth is – God cannot sin. All imperfection is sin. Therefore, what God has done, or will do, is perfect. Perfection cannot be divided or diluted. There cannot be more than one perfect way to do it the one and only right way. Otherwise, perfection ceases to be perfection.

Your question assumes God did not know ahead of time with 100% certainty if sin would arise among FMAs. This assumption is wrong. Therefore, any question that assumes God does not know the future like He knows the past cannot lead to the truth. You do not have a truthful, inspired answer to your own question – “WHY is the option to create beings who would sin better than the option to not create them.”

You do not even believe your question is legitimate because you do not believe God knew ahead of time with 100% certainty if sin would arise. So, you are asking the question simply to disprove the idea that God did indeed know ahead of time with 100% certainty that sin would arise. But he truth is, God chose to create them anyhow because He “would establish His throne in righteousness”, which is the only inspired reason given.

Can you truly, honestly read the following inspired insight and insist it means God did not know ahead of time if man would sin? Do you agree that the language she chose to employ in this single passage, excluding whatever else you think she meant elsewhere, means God knew man would sin? If this were the only thing she ever said or implied about it, do you agree it means God knew man would sin, and that He chose to create them anyhow because He “would establish His throne in righteousness”?

What you are doing is looking for some statement that agrees with what you think, and ignoring all the rest of them. The better way to proceed is to consider all the statements on a subject. The statement you quoted here seems to me to be exceedingly clear that God was aware of the possibility of man’s fall, and what it would look like if he did. If you read the account in Early Writings, for example, it is very clear that the fall of man was not being anticipated at the moment it happened. Why would Christ have gone into the Father three times to convince Him to allow Him to come to earth? If your view of things were true, the whole account in Early Writings wouldn’t make any sense.

This is just one thing. There is the Education passage I mentioned, the Great Controversy chapter, the Desire of Ages, Christ’s Object Lessons, and many other passages that make clear that God does not view the future as fixed.

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: She is not saying that the Lord needed sin to establish His throne in righteousness, but that He saw the possibility of its occurrence, and would establish His throne in righteousness in spite of sin.

MM: If sin arising was only a “possibility” and not a “certainty” then the phrase, quoted above, “yet it did not deter Him from carrying out His eternal purpose” makes no sense.

Sure it does. The fact that man (or any other FMA God created) might have sinned did not prevent the Lord from carrying out His eternal purpose. It makes perfect sense.

She did not say, “The possibility of man’s defection, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent …” There is nothing about this inspired insight that implies God did not know ahead of time if sin would arise.

Why wouldn’t God simply create beings that wouldn’t sin? Did God want sin to happen? If God knew that sin would happen (not might), then that would make sin inevitable, wouldn’t it, and one could not say that the reason for its inception was a mystery, could one?

Tom, you and I disagree. That much is clear; and has been for years. You are convinced God does not know the future like He knows the past. You believe God knows all the possible ways the future can play out. But He doesn't know ahead of time exactly how it will play out. He has a pretty good idea how it will play out, but He simply cannot know for sure.

With this in mind, how do you answer the title of this thread?

Tom, you and I disagree. That much is clear; and has been for years.

I think our biggest disagreements have to do with God's character.

You are convinced God does not know the future like He knows the past.

No, I don't believe this, and it is annoying that he continue to misrepresent my position in this way. Would it hurt you to repeat what I actually say instead of twisting things in your own words? I don't do that to you! I quote you, word for word.

I really would appreciate it if you would stop.

Here's what I believe: God sees the future perfectly, just as well as He sees the past. God sees the future just as it is, which is open and dynamic, not fixed.

Please represent my position like this, as I just stated it.

You believe God knows all the possible ways the future can play out. But He doesn't know ahead of time exactly how it will play out. He has a pretty good idea how it will play out, but He simply cannot know for sure.

Again, I would ask you to quote from me. This is a really poor job of representing my position, especially the last sentence. I do a far better job of presenting my position than you do. Just quote me.

With this in mind, how do you answer the title of this thread?

The answer to the thread doesn't really have to do with the nature of the future, but with God's character. This whole discussion has been pretty much a tangent as far as the question of this topic is concerned.

Anytime a prophecy deals with beings who have free will, it is conditional. The principle is laid out in Jeremiah 18:



Because God is loving and merciful, He tells people what will happen in the future, with the view that they repent. Nineveh is a perfect example of this, where God's purpose in prophecy was fulfilled. Unfortunately, many refuse to heed God's warnings, and the evil that God predicts will happen takes place. But if those who have been prophesied against would repent, like the Ninevites did, then the prophecy of evil would be averted, just like it was for the Ninevites.