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

It may be a random event, but not in relation to the color.

I was presenting an example of the probability of an event being 1.

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

The probability of drawing a blue marble from a hat which has two blue marbles is 1.

Quote:
For example, you made an argument a bit ago where you spoke of risk in one part of the question as dealing with death, and in another part as dealing with the resurrection. You jumped horses in midstream, unaware of what you were doing.

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

These points aren’t relevant to our discussion.

Let’s say the ultrasound showed the woman would have quadruplets, and there was a risk involved that to her own life. Say that she could legally abort the children. If someone were to make the statement that she chose to have the babies, at the risk of death (her own), that could not be interpreted as meaning that the process of carrying the babies to term, and delivering them was risky (she might die), but the final result (she wouldn’t die) was not. If the final result is known (she is alive after the babies are born), then there is no risk involved in the process. If there was risk involved in the process (i.e., she could die) then it could not be asserted that there is no risk involved in the final result (i.e. she could not be dead as of the time of her delivering the babies.)

Quote:
In regards to your heart question, if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk.

Then, since God knows how the body of all people will react in every dangerous circumstance, there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die.

How do you get from “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk” to “Then, since God knows how the body of all people will react in every dangerous circumstance, there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die.”? This is totally illogical. The “then” means “it follows that …”. Please explain to me how my statement that “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk” leads to your conclusion.
Also, do you dispute my assertion? Do you disagree with the assertion that “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk”?

I don’t know how many people would be willing to agree with you, but I’m certainly not one of them.

What *I* stated is “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk.” Everyone I know would agree with this.

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

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

Thank you for including these links, but neither one of these worked for me, so I still can’t comment on Hawking’s statement.

Quote:
So if you were to ask God a quantum mechanics question, such as what is the probability that this particle will go here, God would respond with the appropriate probabilisitic answer. That is, there is an X% chance the particle will do this, a Y% chance it will do that, and so forth.

So God’s omniscience is reduced to good Math.

Not “reduced” but “involves.” That is, God’s omniscience follows the rules of logic. But I would not use the word “reduced,” as God’s omniscience is unlimited. “Reduced” may imply limitation.

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

This seems like a unique situation to me. I don’t know to what extent a probabilistic answer would be appropriate. However, what we can say without equivocation is that God took a risk in sending His Son, so there was a chance of failure. Regarding quantifying it, here’s what EGW wrote:



So here it’s called “a more fearful risk.”

You appear not to have dealt with the argument I provided that if the process is risky, then so is the final result. Basically, the probability of the risk attached to the final result must be greater than or equal to any step of the process leading up to the final result. So the only way there can be no risk in the final result is if there is no risk in any step of the process. But if there is no risk to any step of the process, then the process is not risky.

I believe God caused the fire and flood that destroyed the Sodomites and the Antediluvians. Is this an example of me believing God uses force or compelling power?

2. “You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.”

(a) Are you referring to God creating Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would sin?

3. “You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them.”

(a) Are you referring to God raining literal fire down upon the unsaved after the Millennium?

…………………………….

TE: “Does God know the future like He knows the past?” Not if your question is ontological in nature. Yes if it is epsitemological.

MM: Are you saying that from an epistemological point of view God knows the future like He knows the past?

TE: I do not believe there is any limitation to God’s knowledge of the future, hence our difference is not epistemological.

MM: There are two basic limitations to you theory: 1) The future is limited to the possibilities God sees, and 2) God’s knowledge of the future is limited in that He does not know ahead of time exactly how the future will play out.

TE: You understand the future to be one way, I understand it to be another.

MM: How does God’s ability to jump ahead in time and look back on what happened change the ontological nature of the future?

………………………………..

TE: “God knows all the different ways how the future could play out before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect, and to predict all the different ways everyone and everything will act and react.” This seems pretty well stated, and close to what I've been saying.

MM: Close? In what way is it off?

…………………………………

TE: “The Revelation describes the nations of the world joining the USA in legislating Sunday observance and persecuting Sabbath keepers. Is there a chance these things will not happen?” No. Whatever nations do not respond to the Holy Spirit will act just as prophesied. It may be that God has seen in every possible future that a given nature will not repent, in which case the view I'm presenting would sound similar to yours. The difference is that I perceive God looking forward and seeing many different futures as opposed to just one.

MM: I have a few more questions:

1. What does God base His knowledge of the future on?

2. If the future consists of many possibilities, why doesn’t God tell us more than one way the future can play out?

3. Why does the Revelation give the impression the future will play out one way?

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

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

I believe God caused the fire and flood that destroyed the Sodomites and the Antediluvians. Is this an example of me believing God uses force or compelling power?

Perhaps. Do you believe God used force and compelling power in the fire and flood?

2. “You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.”

(a) Are you referring to God creating Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would sin?

I'm referring to the statement that you made which said this. I was quoting you here. You should know what you meant.

3. “You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them.”

(a) Are you referring to God raining literal fire down upon the unsaved after the Millennium?

I'm quoting you again.

…………………………….

TE: “Does God know the future like He knows the past?” Not if your question is ontological in nature. Yes if it is epsitemological.

MM: Are you saying that from an epistemological point of view God knows the future like He knows the past?

Yes, pretty much.

TE: I do not believe there is any limitation to God’s knowledge of the future, hence our difference is not epistemological.

MM: There are two basic limitations to you theory: 1) The future is limited to the possibilities God sees,

Which is unlimited, since God sees everything and is omniscient. So there is no limitation here.

and 2) God’s knowledge of the future is limited in that He does not know ahead of time exactly how the future will play out.

No, God's knowledge of the future is in no way limited.

TE: You understand the future to be one way, I understand it to be another.

MM: How does God’s ability to jump ahead in time and look back on what happened change the ontological nature of the future?

You have postulated such an ability, but have no produced any evidence for it. I no of know inspired statement which suggests that God can jump ahead in time. On the contrary, inspiration presents God as experiencing things in time.

………………………………..

TE: “God knows all the different ways how the future could play out before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect, and to predict all the different ways everyone and everything will act and react.” This seems pretty well stated, and close to what I've been saying.

MM: Close? In what way is it off?

I wouldn't say that God's knowledge of the future is limited to what you suggested.

…………………………………

TE: “The Revelation describes the nations of the world joining the USA in legislating Sunday observance and persecuting Sabbath keepers. Is there a chance these things will not happen?” No. Whatever nations do not respond to the Holy Spirit will act just as prophesied. It may be that God has seen in every possible future that a given nature will not repent, in which case the view I'm presenting would sound similar to yours. The difference is that I perceive God looking forward and seeing many different futures as opposed to just one.

MM: I have a few more questions:

1. What does God base His knowledge of the future on?

It is an attribute of His omniscience.

2. If the future consists of many possibilities, why doesn’t God tell us more than one way the future can play out?

He does. Also, He has often done this in the past, as recorded in Scripture.

3. Why does the Revelation give the impression the future will play out one way?

This is a natural artifact of the prophet recording what he sees in vision. We know from inspiration that Christ could have come shortly after 1888. If He had, the future (from John's perspective; what he recorded in vision) would have played out in one way. Since that message was rejected, it will play out in another. However, the general principles will be the same, and the visions that John saw will come to pass, just as they would have in the 1888 era, had the message not been rejected.

Ok, but what randomness is there in this? There is randomness as to which of the two distinct marbles will be drawn – A or B, but there is no randomness as to the color. And if the hat has just one marble, there is no randomness either in relation to color or to distinction.


But this is the only risk affected by God’s foreknowledge!


Since God perfectly knows how your body will respond both to the aggression suffered and to the treatment being applied, if God foresees that you will live or die, this is what will happen. If God foresees that you will live, I understand this means, according to you, that your life is not at risk. And since this is true for all human beings, it follows that there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die.
The alternative is to believe, like I do, that the fact that God knows the outcome has nothing to do with your risk.


I consider that the risk is determined by the threat posed, independently of the outcome, whether favorable or unfavorable.


How else could God answer, if He didn’t know what was going to happen?


What is your idea about the final result being risky? Is it risky just before it’s known, or after it’s known, too? I mean, after a surgery was succesfully performed, do you still consider that the final result was risky?


Yes, the quote says that God gave His son to meet a risk. Of course temptations are a true and real risk.

The probability of drawing a blue marble from a hat which has two blue marbles is 1.

Ok, but what randomness is there in this? There is randomness as to which of the two distinct marbles will be drawn – A or B, but there is no randomness as to the color. And if the hat has just one marble, there is no randomness either in relation to color or to distinction.

The randomness is in the choosing of the marble, like always. The fact that some marbles of a certain color have already been drawn doesn’t affect the randomness of the drawing of the one’s remaining. All I was doing was giving you an example of how P(A) can equal 1, where A is an event.
Quote:
R: There is no risk as to the result, in the sense that the result will not change.
T: These points aren’t relevant to our discussion.

But this is the only risk affected by God’s foreknowledge!
Risk is recognized by foreknowledge, not affected by it.

Quote:
How do you get from “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk” to “Then, since God knows how the body of all people will react in every dangerous circumstance, there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die.”? This is totally illogical. The “then” means “it follows that …”. Please explain to me how my statement that “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk” leads to your conclusion.

Since God perfectly knows how your body will respond both to the aggression suffered and to the treatment being applied, if God foresees that you will live or die, this is what will happen. If God foresees that you will live, I understand this means, according to you, that your life is not at risk.

If God is 100% certain you will live, then there is no possibility of your dying. Risk is the possibility of loss. If the loss being discussed here is loss of life, then the possibility of loss of life is nill, so there is no risk you will die. Let’s put a time frame on this. If God sees with 100% certainty that you will be alive tomorrow, then the risk of your dying before tomorrow is 0, since the possibility of your losing your life is 0.

And since this is true for all human beings, it follows that there are no physical risks on this earth except for those who die.

Please be more accurate here. By “risk” do you mean “risk of losing one’s life.” "Risk" can involve anything. Are you saying here that the there is no risk of death for anyone except those who die? What exactly are you wanting to say here? And based on what? (that is, what is your reasoning; I know it's based on something I've said, but I'm not following how you get to from what I have said to the conclusion you are making, nor what your conclusion is.)

The alternative is to believe, like I do, that the fact that God knows the outcome has nothing to do with your risk.

I agree that God’s knowledge of an outcome does impact one’s risk (providing, of course, God takes no action based on that foreknowledge). As I stated above, foreknowledge recognizes, or, to say it another way, properly assesses risk; risk is not affected by it.

Now if God knows that a certain thing will happen with 100% certainty, then God is simply correctly assessing the risk of the thing not occurring as 0. These are just two ways of saying the same thing. God’s foreknowledge of the event does not impact the probability of the event’s occurring. There is no contradiction in my viewpoint.

There is a contradiction in your viewpoint. This comes up in several of your statements and examples. For example, to assert that there is no risk in a final result yet there is in the process is contradictory. To assert that a think has a 100% chance of happening, yet there is a risk of it not happening is contradictory. To assert that an outcome can be known to be 100% favorable, yet there be a threat is contradictory.



Quote:
Also, do you dispute my assertion? Do you disagree with the assertion that “if it is not possible that you will die, then your life is not at risk”?

I consider that the risk is determined by the threat posed, independently of the outcome, whether favorable or unfavorable.

You are using “threat” as in the following definition: “A threat is an unwanted (deliberate or accidental) event that may result in harm to an asset.” If the result can only be favorable, there is no threat, since there is no event that my result in harm to an asset.

Repeating my question, do you disagree with the assertion that if there is no possibility of your dying, then your life is not at risk?


Quote:
This [Christ’s resurrection] seems like a unique situation to me. I don’t know to what extent a probabilistic answer would be appropriate.

How else could God answer, if He didn’t know what was going to happen?

I’m not understanding you here. What is God’s answer that you are talking about? What question is He answering?

Quote:
You appear not to have dealt with the argument I provided that if the process is risky, then so is the final result.

What is your idea about the final result being risky?

The argument refutes your proposition that a final result can have no risk, yet the process can be risky. Everything is presented in the argument.

Is it risky just before it’s known, or after it’s known, too? I mean, after a surgery was successfully performed, do you still consider that the final result was risky?

Every point I have made has been before the fact. To ask if something was risky after the fact is to ask a hypothetical question regarding how things could have gone differently. Understood that way, one could describe the surgery as risky. However, this has nothing to do with my argument, which demonstrates that if there is no risk in the final result, then there can be no risk in the process.

Quote:
So here it’s called “a more fearful risk.”

Yes, the quote says that God gave His son to meet a risk. Of course temptations are a true and real risk.

The quote says the following:



God sent His Son *at* a risk. The risk which Christ met, was the risk of failure and eternal loss. This is the context of the statement. Her point is that Christ’s risk was more fearful than the risk the son of a human father meets.

I disagree about a known outcome being random. As I said, the probability of drawing a blue marble from a hat which has just 1 marble which is blue, is 1. Where is the randomness in this?



This is the conclusion your view leads to. If you have a disease and are receiving treatment, God knows whether the treatment will be efficacious, or how long it will take for you to die. 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. If you are injured by an explosion or a fire, He also knows the extent of your injuries and if you will survive or not. He also knows when He will intervene in a way or other.
Here you must make a distinction. Does the fact that God knows something with 100% certainty mean that there is no risk of that thing not happening (which is what I was discussing, and you said was irrelevant), or does it mean that there is no risk for you (in which case you would have to admit that there is no risk of death for anyone except those who die)?


I agree.


If God knows with 100% certainty that you will not die, then there is no risk that the outcome will change, but this is completely different from saying that things couldn't have gone differently. The difficulty lies in the fact that risk is a human concept and implies uncertainty. However, the fact that the outcome of something is uncertain to us doesn't mean it is uncertain to God. For instance, for the three Hebrews their lives were at stake (YI, July 12, 1904 par. 2). From God's point of view we could say they weren't, for of course He knew the miracle He was about to perform.


Yes, that’s the point. The fact that God knows the outcome doesn’t mean that things couldn’t have gone differently.


It’s not that the result could only be favorable; it’s that God foresaw it would be favorable.


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


Christ met a risk in battling against Satan. Things could unfold favorably or not. Christ could have failed. In His life on earth He had no omniscience and no foreknowledge. He discovered His mission at 12; when He died He wasn’t sure He would come out of the tomb. His risk was real. The fact that God knew the outcome could in no way impact Christ’s risk.

[edited to add the example of the three Hebrews]

I believe it means God took matters into His own hands and used fire and water to destroy sinners. He wasn’t trying to force or compel them to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour. You said that I believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times. But I have been unable to get you to give an example of what you mean. Do you have one?


Are you referring to this statement: :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.”


Are you referring to this statement: “Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon."


God “inhabits eternity” so, yes, He can be in the present and future at the same time. He is omnipresent.


In the paragraph above I wrote God knows “all the different ways”, I didn’t allow for limitations. In what way is the paragraph “close” and not spot on?


But according to your theory, His knowledge of the future isn’t perfect in that He cannot know ahead of time exactly which way the future play out.


I’m talking about our future. Why did God only tell us one of the many ways the future might play out? Is He certain it will play out way He told us? If so, how can He be so certain?


Are you implying that the prophecy is flexible enough that it can be fulfilled in different ways? If so, what are the chances that a nation other than the USA will end up being the Image Beast?

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

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

I believe God caused the fire and flood that destroyed the Sodomites and the Antediluvians. Is this an example of me believing God uses force or compelling power?

Perhaps. Do you believe God used force and compelling power in the fire and flood?

I believe it means God took matters into His own hands and used fire and water to destroy sinners. He wasn’t trying to force or compel them to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour. You said that I believe God uses force, or compelling power, at times. But I have been unable to get you to give an example of what you mean. Do you have one?
If you believe God used force and compelling power in the fire and flood, then there are two examples. Do you believe God used force and compelling power on these occasions?
Quote:
2. “You believe God sent in motion a course of events which made sin inevitable.”

(a) Are you referring to God creating Lucifer and Adam in spite of the fact He knew they would sin?

I'm referring to the statement that you made which said this. I was quoting you here. You should know what you meant.

Are you referring to this statement: :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.”
No. I’m referring to the statement you made.

Quote:
3. “You believe God will supernaturally keep those who choose not to do what he says supernaturally alive so He can punish them.”

(a) Are you referring to God raining literal fire down upon the unsaved after the Millennium?

I'm quoting you again.

Are you referring to this statement: “Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon."
No, I’m referring to what you said. That’s why I wrote, “I’m quoting you again.” If I had meant a statement from Ellen White, I would have said, “I’m quoting Ellen White.”

Just recently, you reaffirmed the same thing.
Quote:
“Does God know the future like He knows the past?” Not if your question is ontological in nature. Yes if it is epsitemological.

Are you saying that from an epistemological point of view God knows the future like He knows the past?

Yes, pretty much.

Like a rerun?

In terms of the clarity with which God sees all the possible scenarios of the future, they are just as clear to Him as is His view of the past. Where we differ is that you think there is just one future that God sees, whereas I believe God simultaneously can see every possible future, which would be an unfathomably large number.

I do not believe there is any limitation to God’s knowledge of the future, hence our difference is not epistemological.

MM: There are two basic limitations to you theory: 1) The future is limited to the possibilities God sees,

Which is unlimited, since God sees everything and is omniscient. So there is no limitation here.

Only according to your theory. Other people believe God knows what will happen, not all the different ways it might happen. Thus, the idea that the future is limited to what God sees is a limitation. In other words, the future cannot play out in ways God has not seen. Technically, that it a limitation.

It would be a limitation if it weren’t this way. If the future could play out in some way God *didn’t* see, *that* would be a limitation. You appear to be stating this exactly backwards.

[quote] 2) God’s knowledge of the future is limited in that He does not know ahead of time exactly how the future will play out.

No, God's knowledge of the future is in no way limited.

According to your view, God cannot know ahead of time exactly which way (of all the ways He knows about) the future will play out. He is limited in this way.

No more limited than not being able to create a rock which is so big He can’t lift it.

[quote]You understand the future to be one way, I understand it to be another.

How does God’s ability to jump ahead in time and look back on what happened change the ontological nature of the future?

You have postulated such an ability, but have no produced any evidence for it. I no of know inspired statement which suggests that God can jump ahead in time. On the contrary, inspiration presents God as experiencing things in time.

God “inhabits eternity” so, yes, He can be in the present and future at the same time. He is omnipresent.
Omnipresent doesn’t mean able to jump backwards and forwards in time. God does not present Himself in Scripture the way you are suggesting. He exhibits emotions which demonstrate His living in time, not the Greek idea of an impassible diety.
Quote:
“God knows all the different ways how the future could play out before it happens. His knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect, and to predict all the different ways everyone and everything will act and react.” This seems pretty well stated, and close to what I've been saying.

Close? In what way is it off?

I wouldn't say that God's knowledge of the future is limited to what you suggested.

In the paragraph above I wrote God knows “all the different ways”, I didn’t allow for limitations. In what way is the paragraph “close” and not spot on?
Not that part. You wrote that God’s knowledge of the future is based on His ability to understand cause and effect. I’m saying that, while this is true, that’s not all that this ability is based on.
Quote:
“The Revelation describes the nations of the world joining the USA in legislating Sunday observance and persecuting Sabbath keepers. Is there a chance these things will not happen?” No. Whatever nations do not respond to the Holy Spirit will act just as prophesied. It may be that God has seen in every possible future that a given nature will not repent, in which case the view I'm presenting would sound similar to yours. The difference is that I perceive God looking forward and seeing many different futures as opposed to just one.

I have a few more questions:

1. What does God base His knowledge of the future on?

It is an attribute of His omniscience.

But according to your theory, His knowledge of the future isn’t perfect in that He cannot know ahead of time exactly which way the future play out.
I’ve said well over a hundred times I’m sure that God’s knowledge of the future is perfect. God knows the future as it is. You are wanting Him to know it as something it is not.
Quote:
2. If the future consists of many possibilities, why doesn’t God tell us more than one way the future can play out?

He does. Also, He has often done this in the past, as recorded in Scripture.

I’m talking about our future. Why did God only tell us one of the many ways the future might play out?
He does tell us more than one. Why do you think He only tells us only one? He tells us what will happen if we respond to Him, and what will happen if we don’t.
Is He certain it will play out way He told us? If so, how can He be so certain?
God knows the end from the beginning. He understands the principles involved. Let’s say you throw a deck of cards from a roof. There are many different ways the cards can fall down, depending upon how far you throw them, etc. But in every scenario, the cards fall to earth, because of gravity. In none of the scenarios do the cards defy the law of gravity. So God can tell you what will happen to the cards: they will fall to the earth. Why should it be in any way surprising that God can predict that those who have responded to the Holy Spirit with sinful natures while on this sin-cursed earth, will do the same with sinless natures in heaven?

Quote:
3. Why does the Revelation give the impression the future will play out one way?

This is a natural artifact of the prophet recording what he sees in vision. We know from inspiration that Christ could have come shortly after 1888. If He had, the future (from John's perspective; what he recorded in vision) would have played out in one way. Since that message was rejected, it will play out in another. However, the general principles will be the same, and the visions that John saw will come to pass, just as they would have in the 1888 era, had the message not been rejected.

Are you implying that the prophecy is flexible enough that it can be fulfilled in different ways?

If it is true that “Christ could have come ‘ere this,” as the Spirit of Prophecy tells us, then this must be the case.

If so, what are the chances that a nation other than the USA will end up being the Image Beast?

The USA was enough of a power in 1888, or even the late 1850’s, for the prophecy to have come true then. It’s even more of a world power now, so this seems not to be in jeopardy of not happening.

You’re considering things which are a bit more difficult to understand than the easy things, such as “God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss.” Or “Remember, Christ risked all.”

If the future were such that God could see it like a T.V. rerun, then God could not have said He sent His Son at a risk. I know you’ve brought out that Scripture doesn’t mention this, but Scripture presents the idea of risk in other ways. Besides, if it were a valid argument that Christ was not sent at a risk, that would simply demonstrate that Ellen White’s writings are not dependable, so I don’t know why you’d even want to try to argue that way.

Also there are theological questions to consider if the future is as you suggest. For example, why would God have created Lucifer knowing He would sin? Why not simply avoid creating him?

You’ve avoided this question in the past by saying that God is perfect, and therefore there couldn’t have been any other option, or any better option, than to do as He did. But you are assuming your view of the future is correct. That’s the very point under question. If your view of the future is correct, and God sees things like a T.V. rerun, He must have seen what would have happened when Lucifer would be created, and what would have happened had He not. Why would He prefer a universe with sin to one without sin? This is an important question, which many thousands of people (if not millions) ponder. Your view of the future has no answer to this question.

Tom, I think you overlooked my post (just above Mike's).

Tom, I think you overlooked my post (just above Mike's).

You're right, I did. Thanks.

I disagree about a known outcome being random.

Events are random, not known outcomes. I never spoke of a known outcome being random. In fact, to even speak of this doesn’t make sense. You’ll notice I wrote, “The randomness is in the choosing of the marble, like always.”
The event is drawing a blue marble from a hat. That can be designated by A. P(A) = 1. I don't know why you're disagreeing with these things. These are rudimentary items related to probability, something you'd pick up in the first day of a probability course.

As I said, the probability of drawing a blue marble from a hat which has just 1 marble which is blue, is 1. Where is the randomness in this?

There were two marbles in my example.

Quote:
Are you saying here that the there is no risk of death for anyone except those who die?

This is the conclusion your view leads to.

No, that’s not the case. I haven’t said this, and it’s not a logical conclusion from what I have been saying. *I* have been saying that God sees *all* the possible outcomes. *You* have been saying there is only one outcome. *If* there were only one outcome, then one could make the type of assertions you are saying my view leads to. In addition, everything I have been discussing is before the fact. Before the fact possibilities are not affected by things that happen after the fact.

If you have a disease and are receiving treatment, God knows whether the treatment will be efficacious, or how long it will take for you to die.

This is what you assert. That is, you are asserting this is something fixed, knowable, which will not change. I have not been asserting this. Therefore whatever conclusions follow from this point are based upon an assertion you are making.

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. If you are injured by an explosion or a fire, He also knows the extent of your injuries and if you will survive or not. He also knows when He will intervene in a way or other.

These are all your assertions, based on a model of simple foreknowledge, as opposed to a future which is open or dynamic.

Here you must make a distinction. Does the fact that God knows something with 100% certainty mean that there is no risk of that thing not happening (which is what I was discussing, and you said was irrelevant), or does it mean that there is no risk for you (in which case you would have to admit that there is no risk of death for anyone except those who die)?

Risk is the possibility of loss. If it is 100% certain that you will not die, then there is no risk of your dying. God’s foreknowledge doesn’t matter here. Given, that’s the determining factor in how it is known to be certain that you will not die in this hypothetical case, but that’s irrelevant. The relevant factor is that it is 100% certain that you will not die. If it is 100% certain that you will not die (regardless of how or why this is known), then there is no risk that you will die. This is just saying the exact same thing in two different ways.

Quote:
God’s foreknowledge of the event does not impact the probability of the event’s occurring.

I agree.

Of course, everything God knows will occur has a 100% chance of occurring. That 100% chance is not impacted by His foreknowledge.

Quote:
There is a contradiction in your viewpoint. This comes up in several of your statements and examples. For example, to assert that there is no risk in a final result yet there is in the process is contradictory. To assert that a think has a 100% chance of happening, yet there is a risk of it not happening is contradictory. To assert that an outcome can be known to be 100% favorable, yet there be a threat is contradictory.

If God knows with 100% certainty that you will not die, then there is no risk that the outcome will change, but this is completely different from saying that things couldn't have gone differently.

Not logically it’s not. If a thing is 100% certain to occur, what are the chances something different could happen? 0%. In other words, there is a 0% chance that things could have happened differently.
To give a specific example, say God knows you won’t die in a given surgery. What is the possibility you will die during this operation? 0%. After the surgery, what is the chance that something could have gone differently than it did? 0%. Why? Because God foresaw what would happen *before* it happened. God’s foresight of what would happen is as much a part of the past as any other event that occurs in the past. The past is unalterable. For something to have been possibly different would be to imply that God’s foreknowledge of the event could change, but God’s foreknowledge of the event occurred *before* anything having to do with event took place.

The difficulty lies in the fact that risk is a human concept and implies uncertainty.

No, risk is not a “human” concept. It’s just a concept. It’s not something that changes with God or angels or anyone or anything else. It’s simply the possibility of loss, regardless of what kind of being you are. That God revealed that He sent His Son “at the risk of failure and eternal loss” is proof that God is just as subject to risk as any other being. Indeed, it is impossible to create beings capable of loving and being loved without being subject to risk.

However, the fact that the outcome of something is uncertain to us doesn't mean it is uncertain to God.

The term “uncertain” is a bit ambiguous. If God is certain an event will happen, then that event is certain to occur. Its probability of taking place is 100%. We are uncertain of things because of ignorance. “Uncertain” means something different when applied to us than to events.

For instance, for the three Hebrews their lives were at stake (YI, July 12, 1904 par. 2).
Right. They were ignorant as to their future.

From God's point of view we could say they weren't, for of course He knew the miracle He was about to perform.

Right. God knew their life was not at risk.

Quote:
To ask if something was risky after the fact is to ask a hypothetical question regarding how things could have gone differently. Understood that way, one could describe the surgery as risky.

Yes, that’s the point. The fact that God knows the outcome doesn’t mean that things couldn’t have gone differently.

Yes, it does mean that, logically, given your assumptions. Specifically, the assumption that the future is a single-threaded phenomenon, knowable as such, implies, logically, that thing could not have gone differently. This was discussed earlier. This concept is a bit more difficult to grasp then some of the other ones we’ve been discussing.

Quote:
If the result can only be favorable, there is no threat, since there is no event that my result in harm to an asset.

It’s not that the result could only be favorable; it’s that God foresaw it would be favorable.

Given that everything God foresees will occur has a 100% chance of occurring, if God foresaw the result would be favorable, there was a 100% chance of the event being favorable.

Quote:
I’m not understanding you here. What is God’s answer that you are talking about? What question is He answering?

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

That gives the context of the answer and question you were talking about, but now I don’t have the statement.

Quote:
God sent His Son *at* a risk. The risk which Christ met, was the risk of failure and eternal loss. This is the context of the statement. Her point is that Christ’s risk was more fearful than the risk the son of a human father meets.

Christ met a risk in battling against Satan. Things could unfold favorably or not.

Not if God knew He would succeed with 100% certainty. That would imply that God could know a thing would happen with 100% certainty, yet that thing could occur differently than what God foreknew. That’s not possible.

Christ could have failed. In His life on earth He had no omniscience and no foreknowledge.

That’s not relevant. You could assert, on this basis, that Christ was ignorant as to His chance of success, mistakenly thinking He was at risk when He was not. But that’s as far as you can go here. You cannot logically argue that there was any chance Christ could have failed, given that God was 100% certain He wouldn’t.

He discovered His mission at 12; when He died He wasn’t sure He would come out of the tomb. His risk was real.

Risk is not determined by ignorance!
Here’s a simple example. You are blindfolded, walking along a plank. Unknown to you, the plank is one inch above the ground, which is covered with soft pillows. You ignorantly think you are walking 100 ft. above a concrete floor. You walk across the plank, making it to the other side. You thought you were at risk, because of your ignorance, being blindfolded. However anyone watching you knew you were not in any risk.


The fact that God knew the outcome could in no way impact Christ’s risk.

You are correct that God’s knowing the outcome did not impact Christ’s risk. Christ had no risk of failure (given your assumptions), and God’s foreknowledge of Christ’s lack of risk did not impact that lack of risk. His risk of loss is 0 both ways (either considering God’s foreknowledge or not).