TE: ... why would God prefer to create a being who would certainly sin over one who certainly wouldn't?

TE: My answer would be that this perspective (future is like a T.V. rerun) is incorrect ...

MM: Are you saying God cannot create a FMA that He can guarantee will never choose to sin?

TE: That would mean if you bought a lottery ticked, you would have a 50/50 chance of winning.

MM: The outcome - winning versus loosing - is 50/50. Not the chances. In other words, I will either win or loose. There aren't millions of possible outcomes, right? In the same way, there were only two possible outcomes when God created FMAs - sinning and not sinning (or, if you prefer the positive, being holy or not being holy).

So, how can you say, "It was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to"? Why do you think, before God started creating FMAs, that He thought it was unlikely they would choose to rebel? There were only two basic outcomes, right?

TE: God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son. He knew of the possibility that Christ would succeed, and assumed the risk that He wouldn't.

MM: Which is it? Did God know Jesus would succeed? Or, did He hope He wouldn't fail? Can it be both?

TE: ... if God set into motion a course of action that could only have one outcome, then he is responsible for that outcome.

MM: Is God responsible for all the good that happens in the universe? That is, since God created FMAs, isn't He responsible for all the good things they do? Doesn't He get the credit? "Christ is the source of every right impulse." (SC 26)

Or, since FMAs are free to choose how they will think, speak and behave, are they responsible for the outcome? Do they deserve the credit? Where does God fit into the equation? How do these questions apply to the bad things FMAs do?

TE: "God was not forced or required to create FMAs. He could have chosen not to create them. Not creating FMAs was the only way to guarantee sin would not arise." This is a true statement from my perspective ...

MM: I'm glad we can agree on this point.

TE: From your perspective (God sees the future like a T.V. rerun) it would super simple for him to guarantee sin would not arise. Simply create beings that He foresaw would not sin.

MM: Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them. Why not? Here's the inspired answer:

"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)

TE: "Even if we accept the idea that God thought it "unlikely" sin would arise, the fact remains - God created the circumstances that made sin possible." Worse than that, if your perspective were true, is that God created circumstances that made sin inevitable.

MM: The idea that God didn't know for sure if FMAs would rebel, and yet He chose to create them anyhow, hoping they wouldn't rebel, hoping Jesus wouldn't fail on the cross, paints a picture of a God unable to make any guarantees about the future. If this is true how, then, can God promise "Affliction shall not rise up the second time"?

TE: Note that these "millions of worlds above" could be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Hence they were inhabited, correct?

MM: Inhabited? Not necessarily. Consider what Jesus said about stones: “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

This is a joke, right?

TE: ... why would God prefer to create a being who would certainly sin over one who certainly wouldn't?

TE: My answer would be that this perspective (future is like a T.V. rerun) is incorrect ...

MM: Are you saying God cannot create a FMA that He can guarantee will never choose to sin?

From your perspective, He could. He could simply look and see if the FMA will sin or not. This is why I've been asking you why God preferred to create Lucifer, an FMA He knew would sin, over one of the other ones He could have created that He knew wouldn't.

From my perspective, creating beings with the ability to love and be loved includes the possibility of rejection. How, from my perspective, could this be avoided?

TE: That would mean if you bought a lottery ticked, you would have a 50/50 chance of winning.

MM: The outcome - winning versus loosing - is 50/50. Not the chances. In other words, I will either win or loose. There aren't millions of possible outcomes, right? In the same way, there were only two possible outcomes when God created FMAs - sinning and not sinning (or, if you prefer the positive, being holy or not being holy).

There are two possible outcomes, but the probability of one occuring is different than the other. The probability of winning the lottery is 1 in 50,000,000 (say). The probability of not winning it is 49,999,999 out of 50,000,000. The probability of sin arising is similar. It's not 50/50.

That you would even ask that the odds are 50/50 indicates you are not familiar with probability. Here's a good place to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

MM:So, how can you say, "It was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to"? Why do you think, before God started creating FMAs, that He thought it was unlikely they would choose to rebel? There were only two basic outcomes, right?

It's clear you aren't familiar with probability, so I don't think I can discuss this with you in a way that you could understand. You could take a look at the wiki I included, and see if that makes sense. When you come to the point that you understand why the following:



is a question that indicates a lack of understanding of probability, we may be able to have a discussion about this.

TE: God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son. He knew of the possibility that Christ would succeed, and assumed the risk that He wouldn't.

MM: Which is it? Did God know Jesus would succeed? Or, did He hope He wouldn't fail? Can it be both?

My answer is an adequate answer to the question you asked. I'm not understanding your difficulty here.

TE: ... if God set into motion a course of action that could only have one outcome, then he is responsible for that outcome.

MM: Is God responsible for all the good that happens in the universe? That is, since God created FMAs, isn't He responsible for all the good things they do? Doesn't He get the credit? "Christ is the source of every right impulse." (SC 26)

Or, since FMAs are free to choose how they will think, speak and behave, are they responsible for the outcome? Do they deserve the credit? Where does God fit into the equation? How do these questions apply to the bad things FMAs do?

I don't see what you're trying to get at here. Are you saying that since God gets all the credit for all the good that happens, then He should take the blame for all the evil that comes about?

TE: "God was not forced or required to create FMAs. He could have chosen not to create them. Not creating FMAs was the only way to guarantee sin would not arise." This is a true statement from my perspective ...

MM: I'm glad we can agree on this point.

From my perspective, we agree this is true. Ok, good.

TE: From your perspective (God sees the future like a T.V. rerun) it would super simple for him to guarantee sin would not arise. Simply create beings that He foresaw would not sin.

MM: Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them.

God knew that they could choose to sin.

Why not? Here's the inspired answer:

"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)

The possibility that sin would arise did not deter God from creating man. Ellen White did not teach that it was inevitable that man would sin, which appears to be your position.

For example, she wrote that all heaven was imperiled for our redemption. If she held the view of the future that you hold, that God views the future like a T.V. rerun, she couldn't have written such a statement as this. You would never affirm such a thing, that heaven was imperilled. How could it have been? From your perspective, God has known from all eternity that heaven would be just fine. How could she say that it was imperilled?

Many people approach subjects with a certain point of view in mind, and then latch on to statements which they read as supporting their view, as opposed to considering all of the evidence on a topic and coming to a point of view which encompasses all of the evidence. I don't think this is a good approach. I think a better approach would be to put *all* of the statements on a certain subject together, and after considering all of them, *then* try to make sense of the situation. Approach things with an open mind, willing to follow the evidence where it leads.


TE: "Even if we accept the idea that God thought it "unlikely" sin would arise, the fact remains - God created the circumstances that made sin possible." Worse than that, if your perspective were true, is that God created circumstances that made sin inevitable.

MM: The idea that God didn't know for sure if FMAs would rebel, and yet He chose to create them anyhow, hoping they wouldn't rebel, hoping Jesus wouldn't fail on the cross, paints a picture of a God unable to make any guarantees about the future. If this is true how, then, can God promise "Affliction shall not rise up the second time"?

You've already asked this a number of times, and I've answered it many times. The answer is simple. God sees all the possible futures, and in all of these futures sin does not arise again.

I'm not understanding why you are asking this again.

In that case you must also believe that the stars are inhabited, since she says that the “starry hosts of heaven” could also be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Of course she is speaking poetically here and the word “worlds” refers generically to heavenly bodies.


There is no indication that there are “quadrillions” of beings in the universe, but we know that billions of angels sinned.


I disagree. All of God’s creatures were perfect, yet billions chose to rebel.


Lucifer was the first one to sin, but who said that, if he hadn’t been created, sin couldn’t have arisen in the mind of others at some point or other of eternity? Suppose Lucifer had not been created and Gabriel had occupied his post. But then, at some point, Jared would have decided to live independently of God. Well, instead of trying to evade the problem by not creating creatures who would choose to sin, God decided to meet the problem head-on and solve it once for all, despite the tremendous cost to Himself and to the universe.
Besides, as I pointed out previously, could God tell His creatures, “There were some creatures I could not create because they at some point would disagree with My government”? This in itself would have been enough to sow the seeds of sin in the minds of many. The alternative would be for God to keep a secret from His creatures – and I don’t think He would choose that.

I agree with MM. If God could only hope that sin wouldn't arise the first time, all He can do now is to hope sin won't arise a second time.

Tom:God sees all the possible futures, and in all of these futures sin does not arise again.

Rosangela:I agree with MM. If God could only hope that sin wouldn't arise the first time, all He can do now is to hope sin won't arise a second time.

This is poor logic. The circumstances are very different, for one thing, with the Great Controversy already having been fought. To equate the two situations, you'd have to think the Great Controversy had no effect on reducing the possibility of sin.

When God created, God saw the possibility for sin existing; in some of the possible futures, sin existed. After the Great Controversy has been fought, God sees that sin will not exist again; none of the possible futures have sin.

”God is not dependent on man for honor. He could marshal the starry hosts of heaven, the millions of worlds above, to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator.”

Note that these "millions of worlds above" could be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Hence they were inhabited, correct?

In that case you must also believe that the stars are inhabited, since she says that the “starry hosts of heaven” could also be marshaled to raise a song of honor and praise and glory to their Creator. Of course she is speaking poetically here and the word “worlds” refers generically to heavenly bodies.

Quote:
Regarding the possibility of sin, one creature among quadrillions sinned. Among his own type, he was able to lead others into rebellion. But there were quadrillions of beings. You can't just look at the angels and conclude that sin is likely.

There is no indication that there are “quadrillions” of beings in the universe, but we know that billions of angels sinned.

If you figure that each world has billions of beings on it, as ours does, and there are millions of worlds, that leads to quadrillions of beings, so there is an indication that there are quadrillions of beings in the universe. However you wish to number the worlds, it is clear that there is an immensely larger number of sentient beings who have not sinned than sentient beings who have sinned. Sin, in the universe as a whole, is a rare thing.

Quote:
It's very possible that had Lucifer not chosen to rebel, rebellion would never have happened.

I disagree.


Ok, so you're saying that it's impossible that had Lucifer chosen not to rebel that sin would not have happened. IOW sin was certain to occur, even if Lucifer had not sinned. Could you back up this assertion with some sort of logical argument? This seems to me to be a very unreasonable assertion.

All of God’s creatures were perfect, yet billions chose to rebel.

After one already had. But this is an entierly different assertion than to assert that had Lucifer not sinned it is impossible that sin would not have occured.

Note that I said that it is possible that if Lucifer had not rebelled, that sin would not have occured. You, by disagreeing with this, are taking the position that sin would certainly have occured, even if Lucifer had not rebelled.


Quote:
The question is why God would prefer Lucifer, whom he knew would sin, over some other covering cherub, whom he knew would not sin.

Rosangela:Lucifer was the first one to sin, but who said that, if he hadn’t been created, sin couldn’t have arisen in the mind of others at some point or other of eternity?

This is irrelevant to my question.

Suppose Lucifer had not been created and Gabriel had occupied his post. But then, at some point, Jared would have decided to live independently of God.

So is this.

Well, instead of trying to evade the problem by not creating creatures who would choose to sin, God decided to meet the problem head-on and solve it once for all,

But there wasn't any problem! The problem that came about came about only because God chose to create a creature who He knew would sin. If God had not chosen to do that, there wouldn't be any problem to meet head on, because the problem wouldn't exist.

despite the tremendous cost to Himself and to the universe.
Besides, as I pointed out previously, could God tell His creatures, “There were some creatures I could not create because they at some point would disagree with My government”? This in itself would have been enough to sow the seeds of sin in the minds of many. The alternative would be for God to keep a secret from His creatures – and I don’t think He would choose that.

Lucifer's problem wasn't one of disagreeing with God's governent, but of being filled with hatred and envy against Jesus Christ. The issues he came up with regarding God's government were a ruse, in order to get converts to his side. What God would be explaining, is that He could have created a creature that would have become jeolous of Him, and act irrationaly, and bring misery, suffering and death to the universe. I think any creature would agree that God, choosing not to create such a monster, acted wisely. In fact, it's exceedinlgy difficult to understand how one can seriously consider the possibility that God would create such a monster simply because He would have something to explain if He didn't.

Let's focus on Lucifer, because I think we're getting off track by considering other creatures and other possibilities. My quesion has to do with a certainty, which is that before God created Lucifer, God had the opportunity to create a being that would cause unfathomable misery and suffering to the universe, or create a being that would not. Think of it as their being a list of puppets or clay models awaiting the breath of God in order to come to life. God can choose to breath into any one of these models. One of them will cause untold misery and suffering to come about. God chooses that one over the others, any of which would led to a universe without the suffering and misery, yet God chose the one that would bring misery and suffering.

Why?

So far the only answer I've heard is that because if God did so, then He would have to explain that there was a creature that God could have created that would have been filled with envy and hatred against Christ and brought suffering and misery into the world.

"This is a joke, right?" No. In both cases it could be a hyperbole, right? That is, "worlds" and "stones" praising God is symbolic.