How so?


The problem is, your stated position is unclear. Does God know the future like He knows the past? Does He know ahead of time eactly how the future will play out? Or, does He only know the different ways it might play out?


Can we apply your view of prophecy to the following prophecy? That is, what are the chances of nations repenting and averting the destruction prophesied?

Revelation
13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

Sorry. I apologize.


Well, I just didn’t understand why you were disagreeing with something that is found in page after page of the Internet, that is, that the probability distribution for a population proportion is the prior probability, before we add the knowledge which comes from our data (the posterior probability). So I concluded that you were disagreeing with me because frequentists see things differently.


Of course not. In my post # 88407 I provided a definition of probability found in the website of a university:

“Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html


A future open to change means just a future compatible with free will. Besides, your position admits that God knows some of the future as settled, which means that for you the future is just partially open.


But how do you state the argument in a way that it wouldn’t collapse?


Right, but this doesn’t prevent the process itself (of facing temptations) from being risky.


What I’m saying is that in my view there are no uncertainties to God – or, if you wish, the probability of future events to Him is always 0 or 1. In other words, God does not play dice. But, in your view, God works just on the basis of probabilities. He has even to calculate the probability of His prophecies happening or not.

Why not accept responsibility for the miscommunication rather than labeling my response as an overreaction?

Sorry. I apologize.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

Quote:
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.

Well, I just didn’t understand why you were disagreeing with something that is found in page after page of the Internet, that is, that the probability distribution for a population proportion is the prior probability, before we add the knowledge which comes from our data (the posterior probability). So I concluded that you were disagreeing with me because frequentists see things differently.

I don’t recall disagreeing with anything that was posted on the internet.

Quote:
R: 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.

T: As I pointed out, rigorously speaking, this is incorrect. You made this assertion based on the meaning of the word “probable” from Webster’s.

Of course not. In my post # 88407 I provided a definition of probability found in the website of a university:

“Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain. However, random phenomena often follow recognizable patterns. This long-run regularity of random phenomena can be described mathematically. The mathematical study of randomness is called probability theory.” http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node51.html

That an event can have a probability of 1 is not being controverted here. Indeed, this is a fundamental principle of probability theory. For example, consider the event of choosing a marble from a hat, two of which are blue and two of which are white. The randomness has to do with which of the four marbles is picked. That is, there is a one in four chance that a given marble will be picked, if this process is random. Suppose two white marbles are picked. What is the probability that the next marble picked will be blue? It is 1, even though a random process dictates that a given marble has a fifty/fifty chance of being chosen.

Quote:
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.

A future open to change means just a future compatible with free will.

This begs the question. Free will can be defined as the ability to do that which one chooses to do, which is logically consistent with a future which is not open to change.

Besides, your position admits that God knows some of the future as settled, which means that for you the future is just partially open.

That’s correct, and an important observation! The future is comprised of a combination of elements which are settled and others which are not.

Quote:
R: 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.

T: 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.

But how do you state the argument in a way that it wouldn’t collapse?

I’m not understanding your question here. My argument was showing that if risk attaches to the final result, it attaches to the process as well.

Quote:
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.

Right, but this doesn’t prevent the process itself (of facing temptations) from being risky.

If the process is risky, so is the final result. If the probability of failing to overcome some temptation is greater than zero, then the probability of failing to overcome all temptations is greater than zero, since the probability of failing to overcome all of them must be at least as great as the probability of overcoming some given temptation.

Quote:
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"?

What I’m saying is that in my view there are no uncertainties to God – or, if you wish, the probability of future events to Him is always 0 or 1.

This is what the question is. What I’m saying is that if the probability of future events to God is always 0 or 1, then that is reality, since God’s perspective of things is reality. Our perspective of things may be off, but not God’s.

If the future is fixed, then God can see it as having probabilities of 0 or 1. However, if the future is open to change, then God cannot see it that way, because that would not correspond to reality.


In other words, God does not play dice.


Interesting! Quoting Einstein, who said this in response to quantum mechanics. Well Einstein, as brilliant as he was, wasn’t right about everything!
But, in your view, God works just on the basis of probabilities. He has even to calculate the probability of His prophecies happening or not.

No, this isn’t the issue at all. John B. wrote quote eloquently about this in the past when we’ve discussed this.

When God prophesied to the Israelites, He told them what would happen if they took the path of obedience (in which case blessings would follow), or the path of disobedience (which would result in curses). God, seeing the end from the beginning, was able to perfectly tell them the end result of each choice. The prophecy was perfect, based on perfect foreknowledge. Where the element of uncertain comes into play is not in regards to the result (which the prophecy foretold perfectly), but in regards to the choice, which is not God’s responsibility.

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.

How so?

Many ways. I'll mention just a couple. You believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times. I believe compelling power is not found in God's government. You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable. I do not believe this. You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them. I do not believe this.

Quote:
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.

The problem is, your stated position is unclear.

No, I've been very clear in stating it. You are not careful in reading it. If you just quote something I've actually written, it can be seen that it is clear.


Does God know the future like He knows the past?

Not if your question is ontological in nature. Yes if it is epsitemological.

Does He know ahead of time exactly how the future will play out?

God perfectly sees the future, as it is.

Or, does He only know the different ways it might play out?

The "only" is out of place here. God knows the future perfectly. That's sufficient.

Quote:
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:


Quote:
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.


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.

Can we apply your view of prophecy to the following prophecy?

You mean Jeremiah's?

That is, what are the chances of nations repenting and averting the destruction prophesied?

What was the chance of Nineveh repenting? You're a bit apples to oranges here, by the way. The Jeremiah prophesy was specific to a nation, namely Israel. The Revelation prophecy is speaking of a class, namely the class that would reject the Holy Spirit. It is explaining what will happen to those who reject, as well as prophecying that there will be those who reject.

Revelation
13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

1. “You believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times.” Are you referring to the Flood and Sodom?

2. “You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.” Are you referring to God creating Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would sin?

3. “You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them.” Are you referring to God raining literal fire down upon the unsaved after the Millennium?


Please explain the difference.


Your answer wasn’t clear to me. Perhaps my question was unclear, too. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll rephrase. Which statement is true:

1. God knows exactly how everything is going to play out in the future before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to jump ahead in time and look back on things after they have already happened.

2. God knows all the different ways how the future could play out before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect, and to predict all the different ways everyone and everything will act and react.


Let me rephrase. The Revelation describes the nations of the world joining the USA in legislating Sunday observance and persecuting Sabbath keepers. Is there a chance these things will not happen?

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

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

MM: How so?

Many ways. I'll mention just a couple. You believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times. I believe compelling power is not found in God's government. You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable. I do not believe this. You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them. I do not believe this.

1. “You believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times.” Are you referring to the Flood and Sodom?

No, not specifically. It was more of a general statement. I would imagine there are dozens, if not hundreds, of episodes where you would perceive God to be using force, or compelling power.

2. “You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.” Are you referring to God creating Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would sin?

3. “You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them.” Are you referring to God raining literal fire down upon the unsaved after the Millennium?


Quote:
TE: 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.

MM: The problem is, your stated position is unclear. Does God know the future like He knows the past?

Not if your question is ontological in nature. Yes if it is epsitemological.

Please explain the difference.

Epistemological has to do with knowledge. Ontological has to do with being. If our difference were epistemological, it would have to do with what God knows. This is how you usually express our difference, but this is incorrect. I do not believe there is any limitation to God’s knowledge of the future, hence our difference is not epistemological. I believe the future is fundamentally different than the past. It is not comprised of things which have already happened, but of things which are to be. Only one thing has already happened, when looking back. But looking forward, many possible things can happen. The only way God could look forward to the future and see only one thing happening, rather than looking forward and seeing all the possible things which can happen, would be if the nature of the future were such that it is comprised of only one thing that can happen. This is an ontological difference. You understand the future to be one way, I understand it to be another. I believe God sees the future just as clearly as you do. I just believe what He sees is different than what you believe He sees, because I believe He sees the future as it is, which is more complicated than just a single line of events.

Quote:
MM: Does He know ahead of time exactly how the future will play out? Or, does He only know the different ways it might play out?

God perfectly sees the future, as it is. The "only" is out of place here. God knows the future perfectly. That's sufficient.

Your answer wasn’t clear to me. Perhaps my question was unclear, too. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll rephrase. Which statement is true:

1. God knows exactly how everything is going to play out in the future before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to jump ahead in time and look back on things after they have already happened.

This statement doesn't agree at all with how God is portrayed in Scripture. He is portrayed as experiencing events *with* us. We seem Him reacting to events as they occur, with appropriate emotion, not reacting as if He had jumped ahead and come back.

2. God knows all the different ways how the future could play out before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect, and to predict all the different ways everyone and everything will act and react.

This seems pretty well stated, and close to what I've been saying.

Quote:
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.

MM: Can we apply your view of prophecy to the following prophecy? That is, what are the chances of nations repenting and averting the destruction prophesied?

What was the chance of Nineveh repenting? You're a bit apples to oranges here, by the way. The Jeremiah prophesy was specific to a nation, namely Israel. The Revelation prophecy is speaking of a class, namely the class that would reject the Holy Spirit. It is explaining what will happen to those who reject, as well as prophecying that there will be those who reject.

Let me rephrase. The Revelation describes the nations of the world joining the USA in legislating Sunday observance and persecuting Sabbath keepers. Is there a chance these things will not happen?

No. Whatever nations do not respond to the Holy Spirit will act just as prophesied.

It may be that God has seen in every possible future that a given nature will not repent, in which case the view I'm presenting would sound similar to yours. The difference is that I perceive God looking forward and seeing many different futures as opposed to just one.

No, this is not the right example. The right example is this: consider the event of choosing a marble from a hat. Which is the probability of choosing a blue marble if all of the marbles are blue? Is this a random event? Repeating what the quote says: “A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.”


Look, all this discussion involving probability and logic is leading us nowhere. The subject is simple. Suppose I am a person in cardiac arrest and I’m submitted to a cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Is my life at risk or not? This is a situation which does not involve free will and which your view would have no problem in admitting God foreknows the result – He knows the condition of my heart, and if it will respond to the procedure or not. Is my life at risk or not?


So God plays dice? Do you believe, like Stephen Hawking, that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and that He cannot know both the position, and the speed, of a particle?

Quote:
That an event can have a probability of 1 is not being controverted here. Indeed, this is a fundamental principle of probability theory. For example, consider the event of choosing a marble from a hat, two of which are blue and two of which are white....

No, this is not the right example. The right example is this: consider the event of choosing a marble from a hat. Which is the probability of choosing a blue marble if all of the marbles are blue? Is this a random event? Repeating what the quote says: “A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.”

Yes, it's a random event! The example is fine. Which marble will be chosen is random; it's uncertain. That the marble will be blue is known, hence the probability is 1.

As I've stated a number of times now, at the very beginning of a course in probability you learn that an event can have a probability of 0 or 1 is one of the first things you learn. To dispute this just demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject.

Here, for example, is a theorem from http://tutors4you.com/probabilitytutorial.htm



This is actually the very first theorem of the tutorial. Notice that 0 and 1 are inclusive in the definition of P(E).

This is from another site:




This is the same thing I quoted many posts ago when you first started questioning this. If the number of favorable outcomes = the number of number of outcomes, the probability is 1. (for example, there are two blue marbles; the number of favorable outcomes is 2, the number of outcomes is 2, so the probability is 1).

This is from another website:




This is the same thing again. (http://www.counton.org/alevel/pure/purtutpropro.htm)

From the same site, here is the definition of mutually exclusive events:



Notice it says, "the probability of them both happening must be zero.

Here's the definition of complementary events:




Here's another one:



This is from http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:BxX...lient=firefox-a

Here's another one:



Note P(A) is less than or equal to 1, and P(∅) = 0.

The above can be found by doing a google on "probability tutorial".

The following is a definition of probability:




Here is another:



If the number of specific events or outcomes in the numerator equals the number of possible events or outcomes in the denominator, the probability is 1. If the number of events in the numerator is 0, the probability is 0.

Here is another:


[/quote]

The site wouldn't let me copy the definition (apparently it is an image), but it was the same as all the others; P(A)= Number of outcomes favorable to the occurence of the event/Total number of possible outcomes).

Well, I think this is enough. One could go on forever with this.

To question that the probability of an event can be 0 or 1 is like questioning that 5 is an integer.

Quote:
If the process is risky, so is the final result.

Look, all this discussion involving probability and logic is leading us nowhere. The subject is simple. Suppose I am a person in cardiac arrest and I’m submitted to a cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Is my life at risk or not? This is a situation which does not involve free will and which your view would have no problem in admitting God foreknows the result – He knows the condition of my heart, and if it will respond to the procedure or not. Is my life at risk or not?

It's difficult to carry on this conversation with you because you are very imprecise in your questions and assertions, and appear to have no grasp of the fundamentals.

The argument I present regarding that if the final result is risky then so is the process is a perfectly sound mathematical argument.

Why not deal with the argument? It is sound.

In order to answer your heart question, you would have to define your terms. When I try to answer a question or argument, you confuse things to have different meanings. For example, you made an argument a bit ago where you spoke of risk in one part of the question as dealing with death, and in another part as dealing with the resurrection. You jumped horses in midstream, unaware of what you were doing.

Regarding God's foreknowledge, what I've been arguing is very simple. If one takes as true the assertion that if God knows that a certain thing with occure with 100% certianty, then the thing will occur, then there can be no risk that the thing won't occur. In regards to your hear question, if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk. Period, end of story. That the reason it is not possible for you to die has to do with God's foreknowledge is irrelevant. The relevant factor is that it is not possible for you to die. If it is known than an event A will occur with 100% certainty, then P(A) is 1. That's all there is to it.

Quote:
Interesting! Quoting Einstein, who said this in response to quantum mechanics. Well Einstein, as brilliant as he was, wasn’t right about everything!

So God plays dice? Do you believe, like Stephen Hawking, that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and that He cannot know both the position, and the speed, of a particle?

Regarding Hawking, could you quote what you're thinking of here?

What I would say is that physicists believe that the function of probabilistic behavior in reference to particles is not due to human ignornace, but reflects the way these particles acutally are. So if you were to ask God a quantum mechanics question, such as what is the probability that this particle will go here, God would respond with the appropriate probabilisitic answer. That is, there is an X% chance the particle will do this, a Y% chance it will do that, and so forth.

I think this is accurate. Furthermore, if you asked God why the particle acts in such a way, He would respond, "Because that's the way I created it." God sees all the possible courses the particle can take, and all the possible results, and all the interactions with other particles, and so forth. God does not see just one future, because there is no such thing. The future is comprised of things which may happen (as well as things which definiately will hapen, but not only of things which definately will happen).

I will say it once more, and let the subject rest. I didn’t question that an event can be assigned the probability of 0 or 1 in the probability theory. I questioned that an event whose probability is 0 or 1 is a random event, which it isn’t. Repeating: “A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.” So, rigorously speaking it’s not a probability, but a certainty.


It may be a random event, but not in relation to the color. For this event to be random you have to assign the letters A,B,C and D to the four blue marbles, and the random event will be which marble will be chosen – not which marble will be blue. The probability then is 0.25, not 1.


No, you didn’t understand the argument. Resurrection has nothing to do with this. I said that although the process of dying is risky, there is no risk as to the result, in the sense that the result will not change. Like I had said in the example of the woman pregnant of quadruplets. Although there is no risk the result will change, for the ultrasound exam showed that she is pregnant of quadruplets, the process itself of being pregnant of quadruplets is risky.


Then, since God knows how the body of all people will react in every dangerous circumstance, there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die. I don’t know how many people would be willing to agree with you, but I’m certainly not one of them.


The link is this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
In case it isn’t working, you can use this one: http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/dice.pdf


So God’s omniscience is reduced to good Math. And if I were to ask God before the Incarnation about Christ’s resurrection, God would respond with the appropriate probabilistic answer. That is, there is an x% chance that the prophecy will be fulfilled, and a y% chance it won’t.