God's knowledge of the future is, indeed, like watching a rerun. Which explains why He created FMAs that chose to rebel. It did not "deter Him" (ibid).

When she talked about God's not needing the praise of men, I read that as meaning that other created beings (unfallen angels and other unfallen beings) could praise Him. I'm not aware of her using the word "worlds" for unihabited worlds.

Regardless, the fact remains that there are far more unfallen beings that did not sin than did, and that sin, taking the universe as a whole, is a rare thing.

For example:

Tom, you wrote, "It [sinning] was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to." To which I replied, "Unlikely? Wasn't there a 50% chance? Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?" I admit that the word "chance" is wrong. But the following sentence clarifies what I meant - "Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?" And the following response further clarifies what I meant:

"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)."

.................

TE: [1] There are two possible outcomes, but [2] the probability of one occuring is different than the other.

MM: I agree with the first part.

TE: 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.

MM: The probability of FMAs sinning was, according to the SOP, 100%. "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: [1] God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God has faith in His Son. [2] 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: My answer is an adequate answer to the question you asked. I'm not understanding your difficulty here.

MM: Statements one and two (above) are conflicting statements.

......................

TE: 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?

MM: Responsibility, not blame. Do you disagree?

......................

TE: "Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them." God knew that they could choose to sin.

MM: Where is the word "could" used in this context?

..................

TE: 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.

MM: She did not use the word "possibility". She simply wrote - "But the defection of man ...."

................

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

MM: In the beginning, though, God foresaw the possibility of FMAs sinning, right? So, why did He choose to create FMAs in spite of the possibility they would rebel? What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling?

Tom, you wrote, "It [sinning] was something He knew could happen, but was unlikely to." To which I replied, "Unlikely? Wasn't there a 50% chance? Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?" I admit that the word "chance" is wrong. But the following sentence clarifies what I meant - "Either they would sin or they wouldn't, right?" And the following response further clarifies what I meant:

"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)."

Again, this is not thinking about things correctly. Did you try the wiki article? It's difficult to address what you're saying here, other than to say that you're not thinking about it correctly, and try to point you some place that might help.

.................

TE: [1] There are two possible outcomes, but [2] the probability of one occuring is different than the other.

MM: I agree with the first part.

TE: 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.

MM: The probability of FMAs sinning was, according to the SOP, 100%. "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)

It's really difficult to respond to this type of thing, where you jump all over the place. We were discussing my persepctive here, not yours. I was explaining that from my perspective the probability of sin was low. It wasn't 50%, which you suggested, which is due to thinking about probability incorrectly. Then, from out of the blue, you jump to your perspective, which is that sin was 100% certain to occur. Regarding your claim that the SOP thought that sin was 100% to occur, I think you're wrong. If one reads other things that she wrote, one can see that she did not have this idea. For example, from the chapter in "The Great Controversy" dealing with the origin of evil, it's easy to see that. It's even easier to see this from what she wrote in Early Writings about what happened in heaven after man sinned. The whole scene she describes because irrational under the perspective that what happened was simply the playing out of something God knew was certain to happen.

.....................

TE: [1] God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God had faith in His Son. [2] 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: My answer is an adequate answer to the question you asked. I'm not understanding your difficulty here.

MM: Statements one and two (above) are conflicting statements.

No, they're not.

......................

TE: 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?

MM: Responsibility, not blame. Do you disagree?

"Responsibility" is used when something good is involved. "Blame" is used when something bad is involved. Since I believe sin is bad, "blame" fits better.

......................

TE: "Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them." God knew that they could choose to sin.

MM: Where is the word "could" used in this context?

It's in the last sentence above. It should have been in the first as well. I think I was quoting you.

..................

TE: 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.

MM: She did not use the word "possibility". She simply wrote - "But the defection of man ...."

This has already been discussed.

................

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

MM: In the beginning, though, God foresaw the possibility of FMAs sinning, right? So, why did He choose to create FMAs in spite of the possibility they would rebel? What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling?

What does this have to do with what I wrote, which is dealing with how God can know that sin won't rise again?

By the way, what is your answer to the question as to why God would prefer to create a being, Lucifer, that He knew would sin over some other being He could have created that He knew wouldn't sin?

Our world is clearly overpopulated, which was not God’s original intention, and “worlds upon worlds” may be hundreds or thousands of worlds instead of millions.
Anyway, what I think is that the whole universe – both angels and other beings – had been placed on probation regarding the obedience to God’s law (although, before the emergence of sin, they didn’t know about it). Therefore, in the same way that happened on earth, it's possible that there was only a couple of beings in each planet.


Sorry, I didn’t mean that. I just disagreed with your assertion because I am making an opposite assertion, that is, that it is possible that if Lucifer had not rebelled, sin would have occurred anyway, since billions of angels inexplicably chose to rebel against God. But of course both possibilities are just that – possibilities. I'm not taking the position that sin would certainly have occurred.


We have discussed this at length in the past, and haven’t reached an agreement. My position is that Lucifer disagreed with God’s government because He disagreed with the foundation of God’s government – His law - which, of course, condemned his feelings and wishes as being wrong. He couldn’t be equal to God because the first commandment of God's law specifies that God is supreme.

“‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ Lucifer disputed the justice of this requirement in heaven, and thought its existence altogether unnecessary. ... He who knows the end from the beginning, had his laws and commandments before the world was created, and Satan chose to question his claims before the angels of heaven, because the law set forth the Omnipotent as the only true and living God, and forbade the worship of any other being. The authority of God was backed up by the requirements of his law, which was to hold jurisdiction over all created intelligences. The will of God was to be recognized in his requirements and acknowledged as supreme in the heavenly universe.” {ST, September 24, 1894 par. 3}


We have also discussed this in the past. Of course the universe would understand very little about this explanation, since they weren't able at the time to have any clear notion about jealousy, irrationality, misery, suffering and death. They would understand that those who disagree with God’s government have no right to life, but of course wouldn’t understand why, and might be led to fear God instead of loving Him.

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. ... Sin, in the universe as a whole, is a rare thing.

Our world is clearly overpopulated, which was not God’s original intention, and “worlds upon worlds” may be hundreds or thousands of worlds instead of millions.
Anyway, what I think is that the whole universe – both angels and other beings – had been put on probation regarding the obedience to God’s law (although, before the emergence of sin, they didn’t know about it). Therefore, in the same way that happened on earth, it's possible that there was only a couple of beings in each planet.

My point is simply that sin is a rare event looking at the universe as a whole. You'd have to do an awful lot of hand-waving to try to get around that.

Quote:
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.

Sorry, I didn’t mean that. I just disagreed with your assertion because I am making an opposite assertion, that is, that it is possible that if Lucifer had not rebelled, sin would have occurred anyway, since billions of angels inexplicably chose to rebel against God. But of course both possibilities are just that – possibilities. I'm not taking the position that sin would certainly have occurred.

All I had said was that it is possible that if Lucifer had not sinned, then sin might not have occurred. It sounds to me that rather than making any different assertion at all, you could have just agreed with that, since you seem to agree with it.

Quote:
Lucifer's problem wasn't one of disagreeing with God's governent, but of being filled with hatred and envy against Jesus Christ.

We have discussed this at length in the past, and haven’t reached an agreement.

To my recollection, we've never discussed this. We have discussed at length whether or not Lucifer sinned during the period from the time of where EGW says his heart was filled with envy and hate against Christ until his final position to leave, where you said he didn't, but never discussed, as far as I recall, what the motivation was behind his actions.

My position is that Lucifer disagreed with God’s government because He disagreed with the foundation of God’s government – His law - which, of course, condemned his feelings and wishes as being wrong. He couldn’t be equal to God because the first commandment of God's law specifies that God is supreme.

As I've said, I don't think we've discussed this before, and as it's an important and interesting topic, I'll think I'll start a new topic to discuss this, and, of course, invite you to share your thoughts. I'll make a case there as to why I think Satan's motivations were not primarily against God's government.

“‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ Lucifer disputed the justice of this requirement in heaven, and thought its existence altogether unnecessary. ... He who knows the end from the beginning, had his laws and commandments before the world was created, and Satan chose to question his claims before the angels of heaven, because the law set forth the Omnipotent as the only true and living God, and forbade the worship of any other being. The authority of God was backed up by the requirements of his law, which was to hold jurisdiction over all created intelligences. The will of God was to be recognized in his requirements and acknowledged as supreme in the heavenly universe.” {ST, September 24, 1894 par. 3}

Quote:
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.

We also have discussed this in the past. Of course the universe would understand very little about this explanation, since they weren't able at the time to have any clear notion about jealousy, irrationality, misery, suffering and death. They would understand that those who disagree with God’s government have no right to life, but of course wouldn’t understand why, and might be led to fear God instead of loving Him.

I don't recall having had this conversation either. It seems to me that God could, if He felt it necessary, simply explain that He could have created a creature that would have acted irrationally and that that would have led to bad things, but God decided not to do that.

I really cannot begin to fathom how taking this course of action (explaining why He avoided to create a being that would cause unimaginable suffering and misery to occur) would not be preferable to taking an action that would cause sin, with all its misery, to come about.

I'm still not sure I'm clear as to your answer as to why God preferred to create a being that would sin over one that wouldn't. I'm hearing you say that it's because if God did not make this preference, then He would have to explain why, and that explanation would have led to more problems than preferring a creature that would sin has caused. Is this a correct statement regarding your answer to my question?

MM: The outcome - winning versus loosing - is 50/50. Not the chances. In other words, I will either win or loose [the lottery]. 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).

TE: There are two possible outcomes ...

MM: On this we agree.

TE: ... but the probability of one occuring is different than the other.

MM: We agree on the lottery example, but we disagree on the other.

........................

MM: The probability of FMAs sinning was, according to the SOP, 100%. "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: We were discussing my persepctive here, not yours. I was explaining that from my perspective the probability of sin was low. It wasn't 50%, which you suggested, which is due to thinking about probability incorrectly. Then, from out of the blue, you jump to your perspective, which is that sin was 100% certain to occur.

MM: Neither one of the perspectives are ours, right? We didn't invent them. We just embraced them. You believe that from God's perspective the probability of FMAs sinning was low. I believe it was 100% certain.

........................

TE: [1] God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God had faith in His Son.

TE: [2] He knew of the possibility that Christ would succeed, and assumed the risk that He wouldn't.

MM: Statements one and two (above) are conflicting statements.

TE: No, they're not.

MM: The first one says "the plan would succeed" and the second says there is a "possibility" it would succeed. They sound like conflicting ideas, to me.

...........................

TE: 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?

MM: Responsibility, not blame. Do you disagree?

TE: "Responsibility" is used when something good is involved. "Blame" is used when something bad is involved. Since I believe sin is bad, "blame" fits better.

MM: Why are there sinners in the universe? Who keeps them alive? There are sinners because keeps them alive, right? Otherwise, sinner would cease to exist. God is responsible for the existence of sinners - not the sins they commit.

........................

TE: "Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them." God knew that they could choose to sin.

MM: Where is the word "could" used in this context?

TE: It's in the last sentence above. It should have been in the first as well. I think I was quoting you.

MM: Where in the Bible or the SOP is the word "could" used in this context?

....................

TE: 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.

MM: She did not use the word "possibility". She simply wrote - "But the defection of man ...."

TE: This has already been discussed.

MM: I realize you believe if we take into consideration everything she wrote about it .... However, I have done this, and it is obvious to me that she believed God knew in advance that FMAs would (not could or might) rebel, and that this knowledge did not "deter Him" from creating them.

.........................

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

MM: In the beginning, though, God foresaw the possibility of FMAs sinning, right? So, why did He choose to create FMAs in spite of the possibility they would rebel? What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling?

TE: What does this have to do with what I wrote, which is dealing with how God can know that sin won't rise again?

MM: Your explanation is not satisfactory. What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling in the beginning? In both cases (in the beginning and after the millennium) FMAs are sinless and perfect. How could God foresee the former sinning and not the latter? What makes the difference?

.....................

TE: By the way, what is your answer to the question as to why God would prefer to create a being, Lucifer, that He knew would sin over some other being He could have created that He knew wouldn't sin?

MM: Prefer? Where did you get this idea? At any rate, the reason God created Lucifer, in spite of knowing in advance that he would choose to rebel, is implied in the following passages:


1. She says "but He foresaw its existence". She did not say He foresaw the possibility of its existence.

2. She says "yet it did not deter Him". Why would a "low probability" of FMAs rebelling "deter" God?

3. She says "for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness". This answer only makes sense, to me, if God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance they would rebel. Not to create FMAs versus winning a minority and losing a majority were His choices. He knew that righteousness would win out in the end, that the redemption of a minority versus the loss of a majority was well worth it.

MM: The outcome - winning versus loosing - is 50/50. Not the chances. In other words, I will either win or loose [the lottery]. 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).

TE: There are two possible outcomes ...

MM: On this we agree.

TE: ... but the probability of one occurring is different than the other.

MM: We agree on the lottery example, but we disagree on the other.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You wrote the following:



This is wrong. It's not thinking about probability correctly.

........................

MM: The probability of FMAs sinning was, according to the SOP, 100%. "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: We were discussing my persepctive here, not yours. I was explaining that from my perspective the probability of sin was low. It wasn't 50%, which you suggested, which is due to thinking about probability incorrectly. Then, from out of the blue, you jump to your perspective, which is that sin was 100% certain to occur.

MM: Neither one of the perspectives are ours, right? We didn't invent them. We just embraced them. You believe that from God's perspective the probability of FMAs sinning was low. I believe it was 100% certain.

You cut out the context again. Aargh! My point made sense in context! You're going off on a different point now. I agree with you on this new point, which is that I believe from God's perspective that sin was unlikely, whereas you believe it was a certainty. I think your idea has a huge philosphical problem to it, which is why God would do something that was certain to mess up. Why not create something that would work properly?

........................

TE: [1] God swore by Himself that the plan would succeed. God had faith in His Son.

TE: [2] He knew of the possibility that Christ would succeed, and assumed the risk that He wouldn't.

MM: Statements one and two (above) are conflicting statements.

TE: No, they're not.

MM: The first one says "the plan would succeed" and the second says there is a "possibility" it would succeed. They sound like conflicting ideas, to me.

The first one says, "swore by Himself" so God made a promise. His promise was based on faith in His Son. The fact that God made a promise based on faith does not negate the possibility that Christ could have failed, and that God knew that. We know God was aware of the possibility that Christ could fail because we are told that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

...........................

TE: 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?

MM: Responsibility, not blame. Do you disagree?

TE: "Responsibility" is used when something good is involved. "Blame" is used when something bad is involved. Since I believe sin is bad, "blame" fits better.

MM: Why are there sinners in the universe?

From your perspective, there are sinners in the universe because God created beings that were certain to sin.

Who keeps them alive? There are sinners because keeps them alive, right? Otherwise, sinner would cease to exist. God is responsible for the existence of sinners - not the sins they commit.

If God created beings certain to sin, then God is responsible for the existence of sin. He could have created beings that wouldn't sin.

........................

TE: "Knowing that FMAs would choose to rebel did not "deter Him" from creating them." God knew that they could choose to sin.

MM: Where is the word "could" used in this context?

TE: It's in the last sentence above. It should have been in the first as well. I think I was quoting you.

MM: Where in the Bible or the SOP is the word "could" used in this context?

You've asked this many times, and I've mentioned a number of texts. I'll remention the chapter in "The Great Controversy" which discusses the origin of evil. Your perspective is incongruent with what she writes there.

....................

TE: 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.

MM: She did not use the word "possibility". She simply wrote - "But the defection of man ...."

TE: This has already been discussed.

MM: I realize you believe if we take into consideration everything she wrote about it .... However, I have done this, and it is obvious to me that she believed God knew in advance that FMAs would (not could or might) rebel, and that this knowledge did not "deter Him" from creating them.

This doesn't work with other things she wrote, such as that all heaven was imperilled for our redemption. This idea of hers simply doesn't work from your perspective. This isn't something you could say, as you see things, because, from your perspective God has known from all eternity that heaven would never be in any danger whatsoever. This shows that your perspective is different than hers.

I'd also suggest looking at the chapter on the origin of evil. That also doesn't work from the perspective that God created beings that were certain to sin.

.........................

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

MM: In the beginning, though, God foresaw the possibility of FMAs sinning, right? So, why did He choose to create FMAs in spite of the possibility they would rebel? What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling?

TE: What does this have to do with what I wrote, which is dealing with how God can know that sin won't rise again?

MM: Your explanation is not satisfactory. What were the factors that led God to foresee FMAs rebelling in the beginning? In both cases (in the beginning and after the millennium) FMAs are sinless and perfect. How could God foresee the former sinning and not the latter? What makes the difference?

The difference, as I explained, is that in the one case the Great Controversy has been fought, and Jesus Christ has perfectly revealed what God is like. The cross happened. Do you really think this doesn't make any difference?

.....................

TE: By the way, what is your answer to the question as to why God would prefer to create a being, Lucifer, that He knew would sin over some other being He could have created that He knew wouldn't sin?

MM: Prefer? Where did you get this idea?

From your perspective. It's very obvious. God had in His mind different creatures He could create. He could have created a creature that wouldn't have sinned. You agree with this, don't you? Assuming you do, then God chose to create a creature would sin as opposed to creating one that wouldn't sin, which is equivalent to saying that God preferred to create a creature that would sin over one that wouldn't.

At any rate, the reason God created Lucifer, in spite of knowing in advance that he would choose to rebel, is implied in the following passages:

Quote:
"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." (DA 22)

"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)

1. She says "but He foresaw its existence". She did not say He foresaw the possibility of its existence.

2. She says "yet it did not deter Him". Why would a "low probability" of FMAs rebelling "deter" God?

3. She says "for the Lord would establish His throne in righteousness". This answer only makes sense, to me, if God choose to create FMAs in spite of knowing in advance they would rebel. Not to create FMAs versus winning a minority and losing a majority were His choices.

These weren't His only choices. He could have created FMAs that wouldn't sin. For example, He could have created one FMA, say Gabriel. Do you think if God had created Gabriel only, no other creatures in the universe, that it is 100% certain that Gabriel would have sinned? If not, then this is proof that there was a third possibility you are not including, that God could have created FMAs that wouldn't sin.

He knew that righteousness would win out in the end, that the redemption of a minority versus the loss of a majority was well worth it.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing the answer to my question. My question is why did God choose to create Lucifer instead of some other creature, who instead could have been the covering cherub, who God knew wouldn't sin? I'm not asking about any other creatures except Lucifer. Why did God choose to create Lucifer instead of a different creature who God knew would not sin?

That explanation would have led not to more problems, but to similar problems.

Similar problems would mean sin, wouldn't it? IOW, if God had explained that there was a creature he could have created, but didn't because he would have rebelled, this explanation would have led to rebellion. Is this what you are saying?