HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,189
Posts195,525
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
kland 15
Rick H 15
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
ProdigalOne
ProdigalOne
Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,168
Joined: June 2015
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, 2 invisible), 2,970 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 43 of 103 1 2 41 42 43 44 45 102 103
Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Tom] #126965
08/27/10 01:37 PM
08/27/10 01:37 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
R: But it had to be defined to be 1 just to keep the formulas a^m.a^n = a^(m+n), a^m/a^n = a^(m-n), and (a^m)^n = a^(m.n).
T: This is sort of backwards. The formula is just a way of seeing that logically it has to be 1.

In this forum, someone asked:
>>I have been wondering if a^0 is DEFINED to be 1 or is PROVED to be 1.<<

The final answer to the question was,

>>So ultimately, which of you is right depends on what axiomatic system you start with, and how you define exponents initially.<<

So, in my way of seeing things, this is something artificial, because you have to define it to be 1, and you define it to be 1 just to keep the formulas. You can disagree, if you start with a different definition of exponents.
The reason for our disagreements about probabilities probably is the same.

Quote:
R: Probability has to do with randomness.
T: Probability has to do with the chance that a given event will occur.

If I define the theory of probability as the study of randomness, and if an event is a certainty, it’s artificial to speak of it in terms of probabilities.

Quote:
T: It had relevance. For example, in the post where you disagreed with "my" definition of probability, you wrote:...

The meaning of what I wrote is clear by the example I gave:

>>I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle.<<

I was speaking of the prior probability, while you were speaking of the posterior probability.

Quote:
My argument has been the following:
1.If God is certain an event will occur, say X, then X is certain to occur.
2.If X is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.

I agree with this argument. What I was trying to point out during the whole discussion is that the fact that there is no risk that something will not occur doesn’t mean there is no risk posed to you. What I mean is that a risk is posed by a threat, that is, by something negative that can happen to you.
Of course there is no risk that your death will not occur – this is a certain event. But the risk to you is death itself – this is a risk in terms of something negative that can happen to you.

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Tom] #126974
08/27/10 02:42 PM
08/27/10 02:42 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
My argument has been the following:

1.If God is certain an event will occur, say X, then X is certain to occur.
2.If X is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.

So if God was certain that Christ would not sin, there is no chance that Christ would sin, and God undertook no risk whatsoever in sending Him.

This is so clear and straightforward, I don't see where the scope for argument is.

It's what you're not saying that is unclear. Do you believe the Bible clearly says the Father feared Jesus would fail, and sent Him anyhow hoping He would succeed? If so, please post the biblical quotes which clearly say so. If you can establish this point, then we can study what Ellen meant when she used the word "risk" in relation to Jesus' messianic mission.

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Mountain Man] #126975
08/27/10 02:52 PM
08/27/10 02:52 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
... the fact that there is no risk that something will not occur doesn’t mean there is no risk posed to you.

What do you think Ellen White meant when she employed the word "risk" in relation to Jesus' messianic mission? Do you think it required the Father sending the Son not knowing in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed?

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Mountain Man] #126976
08/27/10 03:27 PM
08/27/10 03:27 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
No, in my view it doesn't require that. As I explained some pages ago, the word "risk" is applied to Christ, not to God. God sent His Son to meet a risk.

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Mountain Man] #126977
08/27/10 03:29 PM
08/27/10 03:29 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Here is a sampling of how Ellen White employed the concept of risk:

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. {DA 49.1}

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. {DA 49.2}

Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. {DA 131.2}

Satan wished to cause Jesus to presume upon the mercy of His Father and risk His life before the fulfillment of His mission. He had hoped that the plan of salvation would fail; but the plan was laid too deep to be overthrown or marred by Satan. {EW 156.1}

But in the heavenly race we can all run, and all receive the prize. There is no uncertainty, no risk, in the matter. {CH 47.1}

But in complying with the heavenly invitations we have no such risk to run. We must take God at His word, and in simplicity of faith walk out upon the promise, and give to the Lord His own. {CS 90.1}

Those who defer obedience till every uncertainty disappears, and there remains no risk of failure or defeat, will never obey. {GW 262.1}

Ezra would run the risk of trusting his cause with God. He well knew that if they failed in their important work, it would be because they had not complied with the requirements of God and therefore He could not help them. {3BC 1134.8}

In order to do this he has had to take responsibilities and to risk something on the success of this message. God would be pleased if others would feel the same interest, and move with the same energy, but many will not venture. {2SG 280.3}

I would recommend letting them go without for at least three days until they are hungry enough to enjoy good wholesome food. I would risk their starving. {Te 158.2}

In that important position God will have a man to venture, to risk something; to move out firmly for the right, whatever may be the consequences; to battle against obstacles, and waver not, even though life be at stake. {1T 320.2}

Some have no idea of running any risk or venturing anything themselves. But somebody must venture; someone must run risks in this cause. {3T 316.1}

They must be willing to run some risk, to venture something. It is not pleasing to God that we defer present opportunities for doing good, in hope of accomplishing a greater work in the future. {5T 392.1}

There is a prospect before us of a continued struggle, at the risk of imprisonment, loss of property, and even of life itself, to defend the law of God, which is made void by the laws of men. {5T 712.3}

It was their own willful unbelief that turned them back. They were unwilling to risk anything upon the promises of God. {TMK 169.4}

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Rosangela] #126978
08/27/10 03:35 PM
08/27/10 03:35 PM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
M: What do you think Ellen White meant when she employed the word "risk" in relation to Jesus' messianic mission? Do you think it required the Father sending the Son not knowing in advance if Jesus would fail or succeed?

R: No, in my view it doesn't require that. As I explained some pages ago, the word "risk" is applied to Christ, not to God. God sent His Son to meet a risk.

So, knowing He would succeed didn't lessen the risk of failure and eternal loss Jesus faced? Did Jesus also believe He would succeed? If so, did it lessen the risks He faced? If not, did He ever doubt He would succeed?

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Rosangela] #126979
08/27/10 04:20 PM
08/27/10 04:20 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
T: Consider x=2, b=4, c=3. 2^4/2^3 = 2^1 = 2, which is correct, since 16/8 is 2. Now consider x=2, b=3, c=3. Then 2^3/2^3 = 2^0 = 1. So that raising something to the zeroth power should be 1 makes sense.
R: To me a number multiplied by itself zero times (which means it wasn’t multiplied by anything) is still itself. But it had to be defined to be 1 just to keep the formulas a^m.a^n = a^(m+n), a^m/a^n = a^(m-n), and (a^m)^n = a^(m.n). It’s something artificial, just like classifying an event which is certain to occur or not occur as having a probability of 1 or 0 (as if it was a random event).

Do you think 8/8=1 is artificial?
Or proofs in geometry? Something similar comes to mind of showing congruent angles using the same sort of logic as Tom did for exponents. Now, maybe what you are really saying is artificial is the subtraction of exponents. If so, we could discuss that. But saying 2^0 = 1 is artificial, I can't go with that or would have to discount all I learned in geometry proofs.

Quote:

That’s precisely the point I was trying to make. Probability has to do with randomness.
Have you taken a probability and statistics class?
I perceive you have a different definition of probability.

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Mountain Man] #126980
08/27/10 04:36 PM
08/27/10 04:36 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Kland, let's establish a foundation first. If the Bible represents God fearing Jesus will fail then please post a plain, Thus saith the Lord. Citing King Saul's demise does not satisfy this quest.

I wasn't talking about Saul, and not sure why you thought that. I was talking about how the Bible may not mean what it appears to say and requesting you support your similar assertion regarding Ellen White. Please read Tom's post regarding your comment. He said it well.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man

Kland, what I'm saying is that Ellen's use of the word "risk" does not mean the Father was uncertain Jesus would succeed. The risk was real.

Could you explain what you mean by that statement?
Do you see risk relating to uncertainty? If not, what do you think "risk" means?

I had already responded regarding your request. Even if I could meet your request, since you appear to have some different definition of what "risk" means, it would be foundational for you to explain what you mean by the above statement. Otherwise, how could someone possibly "post a plain, Thus saith the Lord" regarding risk if you don't define what you mean? I assume that's not your point.

Quote:
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. {DA 49.1}
So how do you see peril in common with every human soul not being risk? Guess you haven't defined it yet.

Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: Mountain Man] #126981
08/27/10 04:59 PM
08/27/10 04:59 PM
Tom  Offline OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
R: But it had to be defined to be 1 just to keep the formulas a^m.a^n = a^(m+n), a^m/a^n = a^(m-n), and (a^m)^n = a^(m.n).
T: This is sort of backwards. The formula is just a way of seeing that logically it has to be 1.

In this forum, someone asked:
>>I have been wondering if a^0 is DEFINED to be 1 or is PROVED to be 1.<<

The final answer to the question was,

>>So ultimately, which of you is right depends on what axiomatic system you start with, and how you define exponents initially.<<


It's great that this sort of thing is being discussed on this forum!

I think what was said is incorrect. The axioms which are the basis of Mathematics are set theory axioms. There is some disagreement in regards to how infinities should be handled, but I don't believe there are any disagreements which would involve how exponentiation should be handled. There's only one way, and there should be a number of ways of proving this; Alegebra, Real Analysis, and Complex Analysis should all lead to the same definition.

Quote:
So, in my way of seeing things, this is something artificial, because you have to define it to be 1, and you define it to be 1 just to keep the formulas. You can disagree, if you start with a different definition of exponents.


This is coming at things backwards. First you start with the set axioms, and then you construct things (groups, and fields). You construct the positive integers, then natural, then all integers, then rational numbers, then irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, the real number field, and finally complex numbers and the complex number field. In the process of construction certain operations are defined, and there's no scope for defining these operations differently in the construction of these groups/fields.

So it's not an artificial process, but one which follows logically from the set theory axioms from which one starts. The statement that:

Quote:
So ultimately, which of you is right depends on what axiomatic system you start with


makes sense to me hypothetically, but the axiomatic system which is the basis of Mathematics are the set theory axioms, and while there is some disagreement in regards to how infinities should be handled, I'm not aware of any axiomatic structure which would impact exponentiation. If there is such an axiomatic structure, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Quote:
The reason for our disagreements about probabilities probably is the same.


It sounds like there is some confusion here in regards to thinking that there is an artificial definition involved, when there isn't, for both exponentiation and probabilities. So I would agree that our disagreements are probably the same, in that you see things being done artificially when there's really nothing artificial about it.

Quote:
R: Probability has to do with randomness.
T: Probability has to do with the chance that a given event will occur.

R:If I define the theory of probability as the study of randomness, and if an event is a certainty, it’s artificial to speak of it in terms of probabilities.


"Probability" is

Quote:
the numerical chance that a specific outcome will occur.


The numerical chance of a specific outcome occurring is a number between 0 and 1 inclusive. There is nothing artificial about this definition.

Quote:
T: It had relevance. For example, in the post where you disagreed with "my" definition of probability, you wrote:...

R:The meaning of what I wrote is clear by the example I gave:

>>I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero – that’s why what happened was a miracle.<<

I was speaking of the prior probability, while you were speaking of the posterior probability.


I don't see that what you're saying makes any sense. Specifically

Quote:
I would never say that Mary’s chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was of 100%, even if God had revealed to me in a dream that she would get pregnant. I would say that her chance of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was zero


If God revealed to you in a dream that she would get pregnant without the participation of a male, then if you maintained that she had no chance of becoming pregnant without the participation of a male, then you would be disagreeing with what God revealed to you. You would be simply not believing God, and you would be wrong in your assertion that there was no chance of Mary getting pregnant.

Quote:
T:My argument has been the following:
1.If God is certain an event will occur, say X, then X is certain to occur.
2.If X is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.

R:I agree with this argument.


Glad to hear that!

Quote:
R:What I was trying to point out during the whole discussion is that the fact that there is no risk that something will not occur doesn’t mean there is no risk posed to you.


?

Quote:
What I mean is that a risk is posed by a threat, that is, by something negative that can happen to you.


?

Quote:
Of course there is no risk that your death will not occur – this is a certain event. But the risk to you is death itself – this is a risk in terms of something negative that can happen to you.


I have no idea what point you're wishing to make here. Perhaps you could give a concrete example.

I'll give one using the argument you said you agreed with.

1.If God is certain an event will occur, say X, then X is certain to occur.
2.If X is certain to occur, then there is no risk that it will not occur.

Say X is that Christ would not be overcome by any temptation. If God was certain that Christ would not be overcome by any temptation, then it is certain that Christ would not be overcome by any temptation, and God incurred no risk in sending Him. I don't see anything to disagree with here, given you agreed with my argument presented above. This is just specifying a specific event for "X".


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: How Can a Person Know if a Prophecy is Conditional or Unconditional? - Part 2 [Re: kland] #126982
08/27/10 05:25 PM
08/27/10 05:25 PM
Rosangela  Offline
5500+ Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
Quote:
Do you think 8/8=1 is artificial?

No, I think 2^0=1, or 1,000,000^0=1, is artificial. You have to define what it is. 2^2 is 2*2, but 2^0 is what?

Quote:
R: That’s precisely the point I was trying to make. Probability has to do with randomness.
K: Have you taken a probability and statistics class?
I perceive you have a different definition of probability.

If there weren't random events, what would you use the probability theory for?
I've googled the words probability "study of randomness" and obtained 58,200 results, and you say that I have a different definition of probability?


Page 43 of 103 1 2 41 42 43 44 45 102 103

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/27/24 09:35 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Kevin H. 03/24/24 09:02 PM
The Story of David and Goliath
by ProdigalOne. 03/23/24 08:06 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 03/22/24 10:17 AM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by kland. 03/21/24 12:34 PM
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by Rick H. 03/27/24 10:36 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:50 PM
Time Is Short!
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:45 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:42 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 06:03 PM
Digital Identity Control
by Rick H. 03/23/24 02:08 PM
A.I. - The New God?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 01:59 PM
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1