What can I say except that I can't agree with a single word you wrote? First, these are not my assertions, "based on a model of simple foreknowledge, as opposed to a future which is open or dynamic." They are based on your model, which says that God has a perfect knowledge of all the factors involved in a given event, so that some of the facts of the future are fixed. Of course God has a perfect knowledge, in the present, of all the facts involved in a situation of risk to your health, so that He can make a prevision with 100% certainty about the outcome. Therefore, if the fact that God knows the outcome of a risky situation with 100% certainty eliminates the risk, then nobody is at death risk on earth, except those who die.
About the three Hebrews, Ellen White says that their lives were at stake. God saw that their lives were at stake, but He knew the outcome would be favorable. In the same way that Christ's life was at stake but God knew the outcome would be favorable. In the same way that my life is at risk in a surgery, but God knows if the outcome will be favorable. God's knowledge of the outcome (whether based on simple foreknowledge or on a perfect knowledge of all the factors involved) does not impact the risk.

What can I say except that I can't agree with a single word you wrote? First, these are not my assertions, "based on a model of simple foreknowledge, as opposed to a future which is open or dynamic." They are based on your model, which says that God has a perfect knowledge of all the factors involved in a given event, so that some of the facts of the future are fixed. Of course God has a perfect knowledge, in the present, of all the facts involved in a situation of risk to your health, so that He can make a prevision with 100% certainty about the outcome.

Only if every possible future terminates in the same result. Say some possible futures show the doctor making a mistake, and God chooses not to intervene, whereas others show the doctor not making a mistake. In this case it would not necessarily be the case that God would be able to "make a prevision" with 100% certainty about the outcome.

The previous posts were all taking into account *your* view of simple predestination. I don't know why you are disputing this. Your previous questions and assertions don't even make sense from an open future standpoint.

Therefore, if the fact that God knows the outcome of a risky situation with 100% certainty eliminates the risk, then nobody is at death risk on earth, except those who die.

Again, this is not assuming an open future model. This assertion doesn't make sense in an open future model. In an open future model, people die in some possible futures, and not in others. So there is risk.

It is in *your* view that there is no risk, except for the people who do not die, because only in *your* view can it be said with 100% certainty that these people will not die (discounting the cases where every possible future shows the person will not die, in which case I would agree with you that the person's life was not as risk).

About the three Hebrews, Ellen White says that their lives were at stake.

From their point of view. In reality, their lives weren't at stake, but they didn't know that.

God saw that their lives were at stake, but He knew the outcome would be favorable.

This makes no sense. It's like saying, "God knew the outcome was in jeopardy, but He knew the outcome would be favorable." God knew their lives were not at stake, because He knew the outcome would be favorable. One could say their lives could have been at stake had God acted differently than He did, but God already knew what He would do, so, again, their lives were not at stake, except from the point of view of the Hebrews. (and others, besides God).

In the same way that Christ's life was at stake but God knew the outcome would be favorable.

This is contradictory. This isn't difficult! If

A.If God knows with 100% certainy that a think will happen, then it will happen with 100% probability.

B.If a think will happen with 100% probability, then there is no risk.

Do you disagree with either A or B?

Regarding Christ, if God knew with 100% certainty that Christ's life was not as stake, then His life was not at stake. You could assert that, from Christ's point of view, because of His humanity, He didn't know His life was not at stake, but from A and B above, it is clear that His life was not at stake, in terms of reality.

In the same way that my life is at risk in a surgery, but God knows if the outcome will be favorable.

Again, this is a contradiction. Your life cannot be at stake if God knows your life is not at stake. This can be reduced to the following: "If God knows X is true, then X is true." If God knows your life is not at stake, then your life is not at stake.

God's knowledge of the outcome (whether based on simple foreknowledge or on a perfect knowledge of all the factors involved) does not impact the risk.

Right! God's knowledge of the outcome agrees with the risk. If God knows with 100% that the outcome is favorable, then the outcome is favorable with 100% certainty, and there is no risk. God's foreknowledge does not impact this risk (or lack of risk), but assesses it accurately. Other non-omniscient creatures assess it (possibly) inaccurately.

Again I should make clear that all of this is speaking in terms of the simple foreknowledge view. I would phrase all of the above differently in terms of the open view. In the open view, there really would be risk (it's not 100% certain that the outcome will be favorable) and God's foreknowledge reflects this (He sees both the possible favorable and unfavorable results).
[/color]

At the moment of the surgery, God knows if the doctor made a mistake and what the outcome will be. It’s curious that you dispute this, but assert that God foresees a person’s choices, and therefore his character, before the person’s birth (I’m referring to Jacob and Esau, and the statement of Ellen White in PP 177.1).


We began the discussion about *your* point of view back there in my post # 88822. Didn’t you realize this? I said,

“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?”


In an open future model, it is enough for God to have a perfect knowledge of the present and of the law of cause and effect for all risks to be eliminated in most cases (at least the physical ones).


With B. Risk implies a threat. If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to the threat, you can’t say there isn’t a risk. Ellen White says the Hebrews’ lives were at risk. Their lives were being threatened. Ellen White says Christ’s life was at risk. It was being threatened. From God’s point of view, He knows if the threat will be overcome or not, but if there is a threat, there is a risk. So when you say that the Hebrews’ lives weren’t at risk you are simply wrong. Ellen White disagrees with you and so do I.

Rosangela:At the moment of the surgery, God knows if the doctor made a mistake and what the outcome will be.

You're changing horses again! At the moment of the surgery is not before the fact, but at the moment of fact, so to speak. Hitherto we've been discussing before the fact questions.


It’s curious that you dispute this,

I haven't even discussed this, let alone dispute it.

but assert that God foresees a person’s choices, and therefore his character, before the person’s birth (I’m referring to Jacob and Esau, and the statement of Ellen White in PP 177.1).

God foresees everything. I've never asserted anything but this.

I'm really not following your point here. It seems like it might be getting off track.

My point regarding the surgery question is very simple. If God, before the surgery occurs, knows with 100% certainty that the surgery will be successful, and you will be alive after it is done, then there is no risk that you will not be alive after it is done. Your life is not at risk. Of course, you yourself would not know this, unless God told you, but nevertheless it would be a fact that your life was not at risk.

We began the discussion about *your* point of view back there in my post # 88822. Didn’t you realize this? \:\) I said,

“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?”

The whole discussion has been on the basis of your point of view, the simple foreknowledge model. I have been laboring to demonstrate some logical shortcomings with this view, especially in view of Ellen White's statements regarding risk.

The answer to your question, as to whether you life is at risk, is that, given your idea of simple foreknowledge, the answer is "no." Your life is not at risk, because there is no chance that you will die. There is no chance you will die because God knows you won't die, and nothing contrary to what God knows will happen happens.

In an open future model, it is enough for God to have a perfect knowledge of the present and of the law of cause and effect for all risks to be eliminated in most cases (at least the physical ones).

This is an assertion, I take it? (as opposed to a question, since there's no question mark at the end). You say "it is enough". What is enough? Enough for what?

With B.

B says, "If a thing will happen with 100% probability, then there is no risk."

Risk is the possibility of loss. No risk means no possibility of loss, which means a 100% probability of no loss.

To say something has a 100% chance of a favorable outcome is to say precisely the same thing as saying it has a 0% chance of an unfavorable outcome (which is to say, no risk).

Risk implies a threat.

If by "threat" you mean the possibility of loss, this is correct.

If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to the threat, you can’t say there isn’t a risk.

If "threat" means something which may occasion a loss, that is correct.

Ellen White says the Hebrews’ lives were at risk. Their lives were being threatened.

Ellen White says Christ’s life was at risk. It was being threatened. From God’s point of view, He knows if the threat will be overcome or not, but if there is a threat, there is a risk.

Ellen White's statement in DA 49 was that *God* sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If you read the quote, and look at its context, it is crystal clear that she is referring to the risk *God* took. This is not at all the same issue as discussing the risk the Hebrews took.

Well, in a sense I guess you could say there's a similarity. The risk the Hebrews took had to do with what they viewed as the possibility that they would lose their lives. The risk God took had to do with what He viewed as the possibility that Christ's life would be lost. "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss." So from this standpoint there's a similarity.

So when you say that the Hebrews’ lives weren’t at risk you are simply wrong.

When Ellen White says their lives were at risk, this means that had God not intervened, then the Hebrews would have died. Their lives were at risk, and required that God intervene in order to remove that risk. That's obvious, isn't it?

Ellen White disagrees with you and so do I.

That the Hebrews lives were at risk? I'm sure Ellen White had in mind exactly what I stated above. The Hebrews would have died had God not intervened.

You're jumping around quite a bit here, Rosangela. When I make a point, or an argument, rather than deal with that point or argument, it looks to me like you jump to some new thing. When I deal with that, you jump to another new thing. If we could stick with one line of thought, and follow that through the end, I think that would be helpful.

For example, a while back you wrote that prior knowledge of an event does not affect the probability. This was wrong. The probability is *only* affected by our prior knowledge of an event. For example, if we know there is an Ace of Spades on the top of a deck, then we can say the probability is 1 that there is an Ace of Spades on the top of the deck. If we don't know, we would say the probability is 1/52. Knowing the outcome of the event allowed us to change the probability from 1 in 52 to 1.

Another assertion you made is that a final result can have no risk, whereas the process leading to that final result can have risk. I have demonstrated in several different ways that this assertion is false. I presented a well-formed logical argument, sound in every way, demonstrating this.

Regarding risk, I've been asserting that if an event is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur. This is just saying if the thing is certain to occur, then there is no chance that it won't not occur. It's a tautology.

Conversely, if there is a chance of a thing not occurring, then it cannot be asserted that the thing will definitely occur.

No, I’m not. In my view, of course, God knows the outcome of your surgery before you are even born, but since I was discussing your view, I understand that, in it, as the present advances, so does God's knowledge of the future. As I had said in my post # 88920, “If you are hit by a bullet, God knows which organs are affected, and if you will have time to arrive at the hospital and be operated. If you are operated, God knows if the surgery will be successful or not.”


Christ would fail, not God. The eternal loss would be for Christ, who would lose His life. So the risk here refers to Christ, not to God. The text makes it crystal clear that the risk was for Christ, not for God:

“Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
“The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth!”


If new arguments arise, I simply add them to the discussion. Is there something wrong with this?


I don't want to be dragged into this discussion again, but I made clear what I meant – the knowledge of the outcome does not affect the prior probability. Do you dispute this?


I also made clear that even if the final result has no risk of being changed, this doesn’t mean the process is not risky. The very first example I gave to illustrate this was the probability of your death. Do you dispute this?


To me it has always been obvious, but it seems now you are changing horses. This is what you said previously:

“God knew their lives were not at stake, because He knew the outcome would be favorable. One could say their lives could have been at stake had God acted differently than He did, but God already knew what He would do, so, again, their lives were not at stake, except from the point of view of the Hebrews. (and others, besides God).”


If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to the threat, there is risk. If you are vulnerable to the threat it’s because there is the possibility of loss. The life of the Hebrews was at risk, even if God knew that He was about to intervene. In fact He had to intervene exactly because their lives were at risk. So, the fact that God knows that the outcome of an incident will be favorable doesn’t mean the person involved is running no risk.

[edited to add the first point]

I am dropping out of this discussion. In summary:

I believe God knows the future like He knows the past, like a rerun. God knows ahead of time exactly what is going to happen because He already has watched it happen.

Tom believes God knows all the possible ways the future can play out, but that He doesn't know ahead of time exactly which way it will play out.

Even though God sees all possible futures, they may be equivalent as far as some future event is concerned. For example, given that in every possible future Christ will return, and the events associated with His return are the same, God can tell us just how these events will take place. In other words, God *does* know how it will play out. The unknown variable would be the timing.

The biggest caveat I would throw out is that the real fundamental difference in how we are looking at things does not have to do with God, but has to do with the future. We both understand that God is omniscient, and His vision of the future is unlimited. He perfectly sees the future.

The difference is that I do not believe that the future is fixed, or determined, ahead of time. That is, there is no fixed or determined future for God to look into, because such a thing does not exist. The future is open and dynamic, and when God looks into the future, that's what He sees.

Tom: You're changing horses again! At the moment of the surgery is not before the fact, but at the moment of fact, so to speak. Hitherto we've been discussing before the fact questions.

R:No, I’m not. In my view, of course, God knows the outcome of your surgery before you are even born, but since I was discussing your view, I understand that, in it, as the present advances, so does God's knowledge of the future. As I had said in my post # 88920, “If you are hit by a bullet, God knows which organs are affected, and if you will have time to arrive at the hospital and be operated. If you are operated, God knows if the surgery will be successful or not.”

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Quote:
Ellen White's statement in DA 49 was that *God* sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If you read the quote, and look at its context, it is crystal clear that she is referring to the risk *God* took. This is not at all the same issue as discussing the risk the Hebrews took.

R:Christ would fail, not God. The eternal loss would be for Christ, who would lose His life.

That's not the point of the passage. If you read the passage you will see that. The point is that *God* would have lost His Son for eternity. The whole point of the passage is the great love of God (not of Christ; she emphasizes that in DA 131, but that's not her point here) in risking His Son on our behalf.

So the risk here refers to Christ, not to God.

This is missing her point. If you read DA 131, that *is* her point there. But not here.

The text makes it crystal clear that the risk was for Christ, not for God:



This is clearly from the perspective of the Father. It says, "The heart of the human father years over his son....He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power... God gave His only-begotten Son. When it says, "Herein is love" it's speaking of the love of God, not the love of Christ. (to be sure, Christ's love is also involved, and marvelous, as DA 131 points
out, but that's not her point here).


I don't want to be dragged into this discussion again, but I made clear what I meant – the knowledge of the outcome does not affect the prior probability. Do you dispute this?

Here's what you wrote:



This is incorrect. I tried to make clear to you why. When I say "this" I'm referring to the statement that knowing the outcoome before the event doesn't change the "probability index." Again, this is wrong. Your example is also wrong. If "she will get pregnant" then the chance of her getting pregnant is 100%, not 5%. This is speaking of knowing that she will get pregnant with 100% certainty *before* the event takes place.


Quote:
You're jumping around quite a bit here, Rosangela. When I make a point, or an argument, rather than deal with that point or argument, it looks to me like you jump to some new thing.

If new arguments arise, I simply add them to the discussion. Is there something wrong with this?

But I'm not adding new arguments. I'm trying to deal with one thing at a time. Clearly this is dependent upon one's perspective, but my perspective is that you keep introducing some new thing before adequately dealing with something that had been brought up with. I never feel like we get closure on anything.

Quote:

For example, a while back you wrote that prior knowledge of an event does not affect the probability.

Quote:
Another assertion you made is that a final result can have no risk, whereas the process leading to that final result can have risk.

R:I also made clear that even if the final result has no risk of
being changed, this doesn’t mean the process is not risky. The very first example I gave to illustrate this was the probability of your death. Do you dispute this?

The final result being changed is a read herring. Of course the result of an event won't change after its occurred. I have only dealt with the assertion that if there is no risk to the final result of a process, then there is no risk to the process itself. That's what my formal argument proved.

Quote:
When Ellen White says their lives were at risk, this means that had God not intervened, then the Hebrews would have died. Their lives were at risk, and required that God intervene in order to remove that risk. That's obvious, isn't it?

To me it has always been obvious, but it seems now you are changing horses. This is what you said previously:

“God knew their lives were not at stake, because He knew the outcome would be favorable. One could say their lives could have been at stake had God acted differently than He did, but God already knew what He would do, so, again, their lives were not at stake, except from the point of view of the Hebrews. (and others, besides God).”

This is true too.


Quote:
No risk means no possibility of loss

If there is a threat and you are vulnerable to the threat, there is risk. If you are vulnerable to the threat it’s because there is the possibility of loss. The life of the Hebrews was at risk, even if God knew that He was about to intervene. In fact He had to intervene exactly because their lives were at risk. So, the fact that God knows that the outcome of an incident will be favorable doesn’t mean the person involved is running no risk.

[edited to add the first point]

I wrote:



Do you agree with this?

The point of the passage is the great love of God in giving His Son to to meet such a fearful risk.
Besides,
1) The natural antecedent of the expression is Christ, who would “meet life’s peril... fight the battle... at the risk of failure and eternal loss”. God is a very remote antecedent.
2) DA 131 applies exactly the same expression to Christ, not to God.
3) It would be strained to apply the word “failure” to God; and a search with the expression “eternal loss” gave 97 results, all of them referring to human beings in the sense of losing the battle against Satan and losing the eternal life.


Out of the blue you started an argument about Math in a Theology forum, and of course at the beginning of the discussion I didn’t remember the exact terms involved in a subject I had studied 32 years before. However, as the discussion progressed, you could see that what I meant was: knowing the outcome either before the event (posterior probability) or after the event (post-hoc probability) doesn’t change the prior probability. Is this incorrect?


The example is correct. If you want to emphasize the difficulties involved in the process, you have to express it in terms of the prior probability. Saying that that woman's chance of getting pregnant is 100% doesn’t mean anything to anyone. Saying that her chance of getting pregnant is 5% (prior probability), but she will get pregnant (posterior probability) shows the difficulty involved in the process.


We obviously weren’t discussing that the result would change after it had occurred. What I was discussing was: even if you know beforehand that there is no risk that the result will change (like in the case of your death, or in the ultrasound exam showing pregnancy of quadruplets, or in the case of Christ’s victory), the process itself may be risky.
However, I don’t think the things of God can be reduced to arguments of human logic. I would like to ask you, in relation to the case of the three Hebrews, which alternative is the correct one:

a) there was risk in the process and risk in the final result
b) there was no risk in the process and no risk in the final result
c) there was risk in the process but no risk in the final result


I do, but saying that there is no risk that an event won't occur is completely different from saying that there is no risk for the person involved in it. It's a paradox, but it's true.

That's not the point of the passage. If you read the passage you will see that. The point is that *God* would have lost His Son for eternity. The whole point of the passage is the great love of God (not of Christ; she emphasizes that in DA 131, but that's not her point here) in risking His Son on our behalf.

The point of the passage is the great love of God in giving His Son to to meet such a fearful risk.
Besides,
1) The natural antecedent of the expression is Christ, who would “meet life’s peril... fight the battle... at the risk of failure and eternal loss”. God is a very remote antecedent.

She compares the risk God the Father took with a heavenly father. *God* permitted His Son to come at the risk of failure and eternal loss. This is obviously speaking of God. God is the subject(!), not a "very remote antecedent."

2) DA 131 applies exactly the same expression to Christ, not to God.

My point exactly.

3) It would be strained to apply the word “failure” to God; and a search with the expression “eternal loss” gave 97 results, all of them referring to human beings in the sense of losing the battle against Satan and losing the eternal life.

The "failue" and "eternal loss" were referring to Christ. God permitted Christ to confront the risk of failure and eternal loss. Of course, if Christ had failed, God would have failed as well, since He had sworn by Himself that Christ would succeed. His destiny was tied up with that of His Son (but this is another subject).

Quote:
This is incorrect. I tried to make clear to you why. When I say "this" I'm referring to the statement that knowing the outcoome before the event doesn't change the "probability index." Again, this is wrong.

Out of the blue you started an argument about Math in a Theology forum,

Not really. You made some statements about risk which weren't true. I was trying to explain why. I have tried many differenty way to make this clear. The probability arguments were just one of them. The nice thing about math and probability is that they are not subject to personal interpretation. Even though, you wrote things like you didn't agree with "my" interpretation of probability, or that the concept that the probability of an event can equal 1 is subject to personl opinion.

and of course at the beginning of the discussion I didn’t remember the exact terms involved in a subject I had studied 32 years before.

Not just the terms, but the ideas, which is more important. You have been maintaining certain ideas that are simply wrong, which any beginning student of probability would know. You haven't retracted a single one of these.

However, as the discussion progressed, you could see that what I meant was: knowing the outcome either before the event (posterior probability) or after the event (post-hoc probability) doesn’t change the prior probability. Is this incorrect?

I was sort of curious to see if you could admit to being wrong. I haven't seen any evidence of this to this point. It makes a dialog more desireable if one with which one is conversing can be perceived of at least having the possibility of admitting error. Now in the case of probability, this doesn't even impact any theological points. If you cannot admit to error in an unrelated point, where things are completely objective, why would I think you could admit to error in a subjective area?

Now it's not necessary to continue a discussion for you to be willing to admit to error. You bring up good points, and ask good questions. Also you're very interesting to discuss things with. I admire the fact that you could learn English so well from a country such as Brazil, where not many are able to do so. You are obviously intelligent. I also appreciate that you do, in general, a very good job of accurately presenting by points of view. Also that you do not say personal things about me, but keep the discussion to the ideas we are speaking about.

I'm bringing out these positive things because it seems only fair that if I'm bringing out a negative point, I should bring out positive ones.


Quote:
Your example is also wrong. If "she will get pregnant" then the chance of her getting pregnant is 100%, not 5%. This is speaking of knowing that she will get pregnant with 100% certainty *before* the event takes place.

The example is correct. If you want to emphasize the difficulties involved in the process, you have to express it in terms of the prior probability. Saying that that woman's chance of getting pregnant is 100% doesn’t mean anything to anyone.

Sure it does. It means she will certainly have children. She won't be childless.

Saying that her chance of getting pregnant is 5% (prior probability), but she will get pregnant (posterior probability) shows the difficulty involved in the process.

This is just gobblygook. If something will happen with a 100% chance, you cannot say it will happen with a 5% chance. 100% chance means 1 in 1. 5% means 1 in 20.

Quote:
The final result being changed is a read herring. Of course the result of an event won't change after its occurred. I have only dealt with the assertion that if there is no risk to the final result of a process, then there is no risk to the process itself. That's what my formal argument proved.

We obviously weren’t discussing that the result would change after it had occurred. What I was discussing was: even if you know beforehand that there is no risk that the result will change (like in the case of your death, or in the ultrasound exam showing pregnancy of quadruplets, or in the case of Christ’s victory), the process itself may be risky.

That the result won't change is irrelevant. We were speaking before the fact. The point is, if you know, before the fact, that you have a 100% chance of surviving a given event (it doesn't matter what the event is, nor how you know you will survive), then there is no risk attached to this event.

However, I don’t think the things of God can be reduced to arguments of human logic.

Logic and reason are the only means we have, as human beings, of discussing these things. EGW has many statements regarding the importance of reasoning, evidence, and presenting sound arguments.

I would like to ask you, in relation to the case of the three Hebrews, which alternative is the correct one:

a) there was risk in the process and risk in the final result
b) there was no risk in the process and no risk in the final result
c) there was risk in the process but no risk in the final result

Had God not intervened, a) would have been the case, and it was the case before God intervened. After God intervened, b) became the case.


Quote:
Regarding risk, I've been asserting that if an event is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur. ... Do you agree with this?

I do, but saying that there is no risk that an event won't occur is completely different from saying that there is no risk for the person involved in it. It's a paradox, but it's true.

How is it different? Why is it a paradox? Why is it true?

For example, if we speak of an event A as "Christ passes His whole life without sinning." and there is no risk of this occuring, that means the probability that Christ will not sin is 0, doesn't it? So there would be no risk attached to the process of His overcoming sin. I'm not following your assertion here.