Large Number Theories

[JohnV]

[q" Also remember that the odds do not improve by countdown. With each toss of the 27-sided dice you do not eliminate or decrease the odds. The odds remain the same after each and every toss; the odds represent the positive possibilities."

No, but you are more likely to be successful if you have two chances rather than one.
[/quote]
My point was that the chances are no better on the second try than on the first. Having two tries with the same chance on each try does not improve the odds. All you're doing is taking another shot at the same odds, thinking you've got two chances in 1 with some fifty odd zeros behind it, instead of one chance is 1 with fifty odd zeros behind it done twice.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JohnV
[q" Also remember that the odds do not improve by countdown. With each toss of the 27-sided dice you do not eliminate or decrease the odds. The odds remain the same after each and every toss; the odds represent the positive possibilities."

No, but you are more likely to be successful if you have two chances rather than one.

My point was that the chances are no better on the second try than on the first. Having two tries with the same chance on each try does not improve the odds. All you're doing is taking another shot at the same odds, thinking you've got two chances in 1 with some fifty odd zeros behind it, instead of one chance is 1 with fifty odd zeros behind it done twice. [/quote]

John, the logic doesn't change just because it's a bigger number.

Instead of just doing it twice, do it 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times, and you will have a superb shot at it happening.

 

[JohnV]

Not really. Each try still has the same odds. All you're doing is playing the same odds more times. It's just an illusion that your odds improve. You see, chance is not a person that says, "OK, he's tried it a number of times, so those odds can now be reduced, so that those results do not happen again."

Look at it this way. You have 27 dice, and you roll them all at once. Then you do it again, and again, and again. But on one of those rolls, it turns out, you rolled exactly the same permutation that you rolled the first or second time. That was not supposed to happen, because you had already eliminated that chance, right? No, you didn't. The chance at rolling the same on the second throw that you threw on the first is the same as your chance to throw what you're aiming for. And the third throw has the same odds as the first result, or the second result, as it does the intended result. Your odds do no improve with each throw. All you're doing is accumulating a number of tries at the same odds, raising the hope that you have a better chance of hitting it if you do it more often: you're more liable to get lucky if you try your luck more often.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by JohnV]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by SRoper
In the original scenario (assuming the monkey at a keyboard is a model for a randomly generated character) given an infinite length of time (or an infinite string of characters) the probability of generating the given sentence is 1. That is, it is guaranteed to happen.

"But my argument that the chimps won't type the above statement is because the statement doesn't exist in a vacuum or without reason. In order to pull the red ball out of the bucket, it has to exist. In order to get the chimps to type any statement that makes sense, they have to have reason.

"Am I wrong about this, or do I need more math?"

You are wrong. The chimps simply have to be able to hit each key in your sentence with a probability greater than 0 and the stamina to keep at it for an infinite length of time. In fact, to think otherwise would be to take a rather existentialist view of reality. It would be more analagous to say that you have to be able to recognize a red ball as a red ball to be able to pull a red ball out of the bin. So a blind man would never be able to pull a red ball out of the bin. This is obviously absurd.

[/quote]

That wasn't exactly what I was aiming for. The red ball exists. The sentence doesn't exist until it is typed. I'm saying that the probabilities are not analogous.

Nothing is chance. That which does not exist cannot exist because God hasn't made it to exist. That which does exist is ordered by the Lord.

"I don't care how many monkeys with typewriters there are."

OK, you can say that it was providence that the monkeys will eventually type your sentence, and I agree. However, that does not mean that randomness as a model is not a useful concept.

I don't like looking back on a scenario that is random and calling it providence. That makes it look like God has foreordained a result produced by a second cause instead of foreordaining a result and using secondary means. God is not using statistics to make things come to pass. This is our wisdom looking back on it and trying to make sense of it, systematizing what God does when something seems random.

The philosophical slant of this scenario is that given enough time, artificial intelligence can produce a reasonable statement. They're not just typing ball and hoop, but relating the two by reason - and this from a totally random set of circumstances.

But let's bring this to a whole new level. If the monkeys can type, "The baskeball went through the hoop," and this as a result of enough time and attention, what would keep them from randomly generating the words, "Jesus is the devil incarnate?" Under the scenario rules, nothing would keep them from typing this. Given, then, enough time to type random sentences, the monkeys could come up with their own bible that is the exact opposite of God's Word. Is it still "guaranteed to happen?"

I must tell you that I didn't do well in high school physics for this very reason: I reject anything out of hand that takes away from the Godness of God. Random large numbers detract from the providence of God and make it possible given enough time, to statistically kill God.

I have to believe that God is confounding us on this point. He makes things seem in some certain way, but they are because He's says they are, not because they're statistically probable.

In Christ,

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by JohnV
Not really. Each try still has the same odds. All you're doing is playing the same odds more times. It's just an illusion that your odds improve. You see, chance is not a person that says, "OK, he's tried it a number of times, so those odds can now be reduced, so that those results do not happen again."

Look at it this way. You have 27 dice, and you roll them all at once. Then you do it again, and again, and again. But on one of those rolls, it turns out, you rolled exactly the same permutation that you rolled the first or second time. That was not supposed to happen, because you had already eliminated that chance, right? No, you didn't. The chance at rolling the same on the second throw that you threw on the first is the same as your chance to throw what you're aiming for. And the third throw has the same odds as the first result, or the second result, as it does the intended result. Your odds do no improve with each throw. All you're doing is accumulating a number of tries at the same odds, raising the hope that you have a better chance of hitting it if you do it more often: you're more liable to get lucky if you try your luck more often.

You are completely missing the point.

It is correct that if I roll a pair of dice 27 times, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I will roll the 28th time. The 28th time I roll the dice, my chances of getting a 12 are still 1 in 36.

But what I will specifically roll on the 28th time is NOT the question!!!

Rather, the question is this: If I roll the dice 28 times, am I more likely to get a 12 sometime, than if I only roll the dice once? --- And the answer to that question is a definite YES!

Rolling multiple times does not increase my odds of getting a 12 on my next try. However, rolling multiple times DOES increase my odds of getting a 12 sometime. I don't know which roll will produce a 12, but I DO know that 28 rolls are MUCH more likely to produce a 12 than a single roll.

Thus, you should not be comparing the 28th roll to a single roll. Rather, you should be comparing the combination of all 28 rolls with a single roll. The difference is HUGE.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

The philosophical slant of this scenario is that given enough time, artificial intelligence can produce a reasonable statement.

As has already been mentioned above, artificial intelligence already has produced a number of "reasonable statements", including some impressive discoveries that have been patented. Genetic algorithms and genetic programming have brought about new discoveries which human experts did not find on their own. A computer randomly modifies an existing computer program, and over time these random changes coalesce into a computer program that solves a problem. I am not just talking about theory. I am talking about technology that is currently in use.

Furthermore, I personally could write a computer program that would output letters in random order. Run my program for a few days, sift through the output, and you will see a number of meaningful statements. That takes away the need for monkeys and typewriters.

Originally posted by kceaster

I must tell you that I didn't do well in high school physics for this very reason: I reject anything out of hand that takes away from the Godness of God. Random large numbers detract from the providence of God and make it possible given enough time, to statistically kill God.

Does the fact that genetic programming exists take away from the Godness of God? No way. God has ordained everything that comes to pass, whether the throw of the dice (Proverbs 16:33), the outcome of random typing, or the result of a genetic computer program.

 

[JohnV]

Granted, Joseph. But we are on the topic of random chance coming up with a designed result, and that the design means something rather than just it being a random result.

If you're looking for a twelve, and how many chances you're going to take to try for it, then you will likely stop when you get that result, and say, "Aha!" But monkeys in a room, punching keys, could conceiveably come with the desired sentence twenty times or more, and yet it means no more than the rest of the gibberish they typed. Even if there were someone in the room to proof-read all the typed papers, looking for that one sentence. If he found it, it would still be, "So what?"

No matter how many times or chances the monkeys are given, the odds do not improve with each try. What is being postulated is that design or reason will arise, given sufficient opportunity. And to demonstrate this postulation, an example is given of chimps in a room with typewriters coming up with a random sentence that makes sense. Assuming an empirical connection has been established, how has adding years to the experiment improved the odds?

Assuming, for the moment, that the idea was to show that primitive man, descending from apes, would eventually come up with logical sequencing of letters in order to communicate, we must deal with the fact that chimps coming, up with an intelligible sentence in a world without written code, means nothing.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Puddleglum
You've got 36 letters & spaces, if I counted correctly.

It is a theoretically possibility to get that statement as a result of random chance.

However, the probability is (1/27)*(1/27)*(1/27) . . . until you have 36 (1/27)'s. In other words, the probability of that statement occuring randomly is 1/(27^36).

BTW, 27^36 is roughly equal to 3.38*10^51. 1/(27^36) is roughly equal to 2.96*10^-52.

Basically, it's theoretically possible, but extremely improbable. If you knew how fast chimps type you should be able to work out how long you'd have to give them to come up with this random statement.

Um yeah... sure, I understand.

 

[JohnV]

Sorry, Daniel. Would it help if we typed it in Greek? But then I would be one of the chimps.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Think of it as flipping a coin. Except instead of 2 sides, this "coin" has 27 sides: one "side" for each letter of the alphabet, plus an extra for spaces.

The odds of getting the first letter, "t", purely at random, are 1 in 27. The odds of getting the second letter immediately afterwards are also 1 in 27. So, the odds of getting the first two letters in order, purely at random, are 1 in 27*27, or 1 in 729.

Actually... look down at your keyboard... there are a lot more keys than just letters and spacebar... the monkeys would have to go through all those too!

 

[bradofshaw]

Originally posted by poimen

Originally posted by Puddleglum
You've got 36 letters & spaces, if I counted correctly.

It is a theoretically possibility to get that statement as a result of random chance.

However, the probability is (1/27)*(1/27)*(1/27) . . . until you have 36 (1/27)'s. In other words, the probability of that statement occuring randomly is 1/(27^36).

BTW, 27^36 is roughly equal to 3.38*10^51. 1/(27^36) is roughly equal to 2.96*10^-52.

Basically, it's theoretically possible, but extremely improbable. If you knew how fast chimps type you should be able to work out how long you'd have to give them to come up with this random statement.

Um yeah... sure, I understand.

Actually, I mentioned this to a freind of mine, and he pointed out the obvious. A keyboard has more than 27 buttons. You would have to take into account the digits, symbols, return button, etc. Since the space bar and return are larger than the letters, they would probably get hit more often. You would have to add another 20 or so buttons. The numbers keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger...

Of course, we can only speak of theoretic probability in an ordered universe. Who cares about the probability in a chance universe? Something happened because it just happened to

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by JohnV
Sorry, Daniel. Would it help if we typed it in Greek? But then I would be one of the chimps.

I'm quite ignorant when it comes to math.

 

[SRoper]

"Scott, you just became my 'buddy' with that post!

"You exhibit very good reasoning, both theologically and mathematically!"

Thank you for your kind words, Joseph.

"What is being postulated is that design or reason will arise, given sufficient opportunity. "

I missed where this was postulated. I believe Joseph was only addressing the correctness of the monkey-typerwriter thought problem. I don't see anywhere where any implications from this were being affirmed one way or another.

"I don't like looking back on a scenario that is random and calling it providence."

You missed the word "model." A model is our limited way of describing reality and making predictions. It is not what actually is.

"But let's bring this to a whole new level. If the monkeys can type, 'The baskeball went through the hoop,' and this as a result of enough time and attention, what would keep them from randomly generating the words, 'Jesus is the devil incarnate?' Under the scenario rules, nothing would keep them from typing this. Given, then, enough time to type random sentences, the monkeys could come up with their own bible that is the exact opposite of God's Word. Is it still 'guaranteed to happen?'"

Yes it is guaranteed to happen. I fail to understand your point.

"Random large numbers detract from the providence of God and make it possible given enough time, to statistically kill God."

Please explain how this follows.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by SRoper

"I don't like looking back on a scenario that is random and calling it providence."

You missed the word "model." A model is our limited way of describing reality and making predictions. It is not what actually is.

We describe reality by random model? Is this what you're saying? Even if it is some part of reality, I still reject it. There is nothing real that does not have the stamp of God upon it.

"But let's bring this to a whole new level. If the monkeys can type, 'The baskeball went through the hoop,' and this as a result of enough time and attention, what would keep them from randomly generating the words, 'Jesus is the devil incarnate?' Under the scenario rules, nothing would keep them from typing this. Given, then, enough time to type random sentences, the monkeys could come up with their own bible that is the exact opposite of God's Word. Is it still 'guaranteed to happen?'"

Yes it is guaranteed to happen. I fail to understand your point.

The point is that God directs monkey's fingers. Even though possible given enough time and attention, God will not allow things like this to come to pass. It doesn't matter the odds. Do you not see how the postulation makes the absolute sovereignty of God not as absolute? If God can't control random things or statistically probable things, even the most minute of things; how is He a sovereign God?

I am, of course, making the assumption that God would not allow this. It would help if it were not hypothetical. If someone actually tried to do this, it would fail miserably because experimentation with primates has shown that it would take an awfully long time to get them to pay attention to what they're doing.

But I am objecting philosophically.

"Random large numbers detract from the providence of God and make it possible given enough time, to statistically kill God."

Please explain how this follows.

It isn't the random numbers themselves, but the sinful analysis of them by sinful men. Numbers in general could be said to be neutral. But analysis of the numbers and statistics and probablility are what has given us evolution, which "statistically" kills God.

In Christ,

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

It isn't the random numbers themselves, but the sinful analysis of them by sinful men. Numbers in general could be said to be neutral. But analysis of the numbers and statistics and probablility are what has given us evolution, which "statistically" kills God.

Kevin,

Reformed Christian mathematicians like me don't want to statistically kill God any more than you do.

Please respond to some things I said to you earlier:


As has already been mentioned above, artificial intelligence already has produced a number of "reasonable statements", including some impressive discoveries that have been patented. Genetic algorithms and genetic programming have brought about new discoveries which human experts did not find on their own. A computer randomly modifies an existing computer program, and over time these random changes coalesce into a computer program that solves a problem. I am not just talking about theory. I am talking about technology that is currently in use.

Furthermore, I personally could write a computer program that would output letters in an unpredictable order. Run my program for a few days, sift through the output, and you will see a number of meaningful statements. That takes away the need for monkeys and typewriters.

Quote: Originally posted by kceaster

I must tell you that I didn't do well in high school physics for this very reason: I reject anything out of hand that takes away from the Godness of God. Random large numbers detract from the providence of God and make it possible given enough time, to statistically kill God.

Does the fact that genetic programming exists take away from the Godness of God? No way. God has ordained everything that comes to pass, whether the throw of the dice (Proverbs 16:33), the outcome of random typing, or the result of a genetic computer program.

 

[SRoper]

"The point is that God directs monkey's fingers. Even though possible given enough time and attention, God will not allow things like this to come to pass. It doesn't matter the odds. Do you not see how the postulation makes the absolute sovereignty of God not as absolute? If God can't control random things or statistically probable things, even the most minute of things; how is He a sovereign God?"

It seems athiests must kill God everytime they take up the pen to attack him. God directs their fingers in the same way, does he not?

"I am, of course, making the assumption that God would not allow this."

I am saying that your assumption must be wrong. You have not presented a credible case for us to consider adopting it.

 

[kceaster]

Let me put it this way:

Say I go to Vegas and I have 10,000 50 cent pieces in a bag. I go play the .50 slot machines. Now let's say my odds are 1/1000 to get a payout of $10,000. If that is the case, I have 10 chances to double my money. Will I win?

According to the odds I will. But according to God who reigns above, I don't win, and I lose $5,000. You can say that Vegas is never random, but why are they not random? God is in control even when we're out of control. If they have rigged the machines so that I don't win, was it not God who did this? Then you could say that the odds were never 1/1000. But the lady sitting next to me, won $10,000 after putting in just 78 coins.

This happens at Vegas all the time. Some people have actually put only a few coins in and got a huge payout, while some poor saps have put in everything they came with and lost it all.

It is playing odds, whether from the winning side (casino) or the losing side (casino patrons). But the kicker is, that God is the one in control of it all. There is no randomness in any casino in the world.

Now we could collect all the data and find out the exact odds for any given slot in any given casino. But this is our analyzing the data after the fact. We make it seem as though there is a 1/1000 chance to win. But in reality, there is no chance, but providence, which is why Christians should stay away from gambling.

It is the exact same thing with the monkeys. The message will only be typed if God chooses to let it be. If He doesn't, it won't. But let's be cautious about this because we don't want to say that God doesn't care about it. He upholds all, or He upholds nothing.

If some things do occur with seeming randomness, we need to be careful how we transmit the data. Is it random? Is there a good chance it will happen again? James tells us the answer, "If the Lord wills..."

In Christ,

KC

 

[JohnV]

Kevin:
As I understand it, the reason for the illustration is to demonstrate that randomness can conceivably cause some kind of order. The thing that I think is important is that that order means nothing if all is random.

You don't hear of Reformed Christians (Christians of any sort, for that matter) making up these kinds of scenarios in order to prove something. In this, we take the approach that you suggest, referring always to God's providence and governance. We don't need a room full of monkeys on typewriters for any of our purposes.

Someone pointed out that a typewriter has many more than just 26 keys and a space bar. "The basketball went through the hoop." has fewer than 26 letters, but we don't have typewriters with only those letters on it. He is correct that that the odds have to measured by the inclusion of all the keys that may be punched, rather than just the ones that are relevant to that one sentence, much less the entire alphabet. Put the chimps on a computer keyboard and things get even narrower, with even more possible permutations.

But the over-riding thing for me is that if the sentence is typed out randomly, whether sooner or later, it still has no meaning if it is accomplished. The same thing with random programming for a computer: it only means something if there is someone to seek and find the random results for some meaning. It becomes meaning in a meaningful world: it is not outside it, and it does not produce it.

I think that is the same point you're driving at, but from a different angle. Chimps in a room with typewriters begs the question; computers coming up with sentences or even programs out of randomness begs the question. Where did the orderliness come from that produced a random result? In the end one is still left with the question of where design came from in the first place, or even the concept of design for that matter.

The interesting thing is that design exists where the concept is possible, and that is most intriguing to me. We cannot have the idea of design unless it already exists; and it exists because the necessity of it from possibility. There is only one answer ever given to this riddle, and that is that there is a God. And not just any God, for there is only one ever described to man as answerable to the necessaary description, namely the God the Bible declares.

In the end of the discussion on chimps in a room with typewriters producing a random sentence, we are still just as much faced with the necessity of God's existence from our perspective, being creatures.

 

[SRoper]

"Say I go to Vegas and I have 10,000 50 cent pieces in a bag. I go play the .50 slot machines. Now let's say my odds are 1/1000 to get a payout of $10,000. If that is the case, I have 10 chances to double my money. Will I win?"

I'm afraid you don't have the basics of probability down. "I have 10 chances to double my money" is nonsense. The expected return after playing 10,000 times would be $95,000. The probability of losing every time (your scenario) is (.999)^10000 = 4.52*10^-5 or 0.00452% or 1 in 22,000. I don't know, but I would be quite pleased if I could make most of my decisions with that kind of certainty.

Kevin, the problem is that your view isn't useful because it can't inform your decision making. For example, I check the weather report to see what the probability of rain will be for the day. This informs what activities I will plan. It seems that your view would only say, "The Lord will do what he will." That's not very helpful; in fact it seems fatalistic.

"But in reality, there is no chance, but providence, which is why Christians should stay away from gambling."

This argument also seems to disallow investing among other things. How can you assess risk without taking probability into account?

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by SRoper
"Say I go to Vegas and I have 10,000 50 cent pieces in a bag. I go play the .50 slot machines. Now let's say my odds are 1/1000 to get a payout of $10,000. If that is the case, I have 10 chances to double my money. Will I win?"

I'm afraid you don't have the basics of probability down. "I have 10 chances to double my money" is nonsense. The expected return after playing 10,000 times would be $95,000. The probability of losing every time (your scenario) is (.999)^10000 = 4.52*10^-5 or 0.00452% or 1 in 22,000. I don't know, but I would be quite pleased if I could make most of my decisions with that kind of certainty.

Kevin, the problem is that your view isn't useful because it can't inform your decision making. For example, I check the weather report to see what the probability of rain will be for the day. This informs what activities I will plan. It seems that your view would only say, "The Lord will do what he will." That's not very helpful; in fact it seems fatalistic.

"But in reality, there is no chance, but providence, which is why Christians should stay away from gambling."

This argument also seems to disallow investing among other things. How can you assess risk without taking probability into account?

Because you do as James suggests, "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit'; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

It's pretty clear to me I am dumber than you guys. I'll stay back here in the dark ages with my thinking that God is sovereign in all things. Y'all go ahead and keep planning on probabilities.

In Christ,

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by SRoper
"Say I go to Vegas and I have 10,000 50 cent pieces in a bag. I go play the .50 slot machines. Now let's say my odds are 1/1000 to get a payout of $10,000. If that is the case, I have 10 chances to double my money. Will I win?"

I'm afraid you don't have the basics of probability down. "I have 10 chances to double my money" is nonsense. The expected return after playing 10,000 times would be $95,000. The probability of losing every time (your scenario) is (.999)^10000 = 4.52*10^-5 or 0.00452% or 1 in 22,000. I don't know, but I would be quite pleased if I could make most of my decisions with that kind of certainty.

Kevin, the problem is that your view isn't useful because it can't inform your decision making. For example, I check the weather report to see what the probability of rain will be for the day. This informs what activities I will plan. It seems that your view would only say, "The Lord will do what he will." That's not very helpful; in fact it seems fatalistic.

"But in reality, there is no chance, but providence, which is why Christians should stay away from gambling."

This argument also seems to disallow investing among other things. How can you assess risk without taking probability into account?

Well said, Scott!




[Edited on 9-21-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster
Because you do as James suggests, "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit'; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

It's pretty clear to me I am dumber than you guys. I'll stay back here in the dark ages with my thinking that God is sovereign in all things. Y'all go ahead and keep planning on probabilities.

Kevin,

Please apologize to Scott and me for implicitly slandering the two of us. Scott and I both 100% believe that God controls every event, no matter what. God is Sovereign. Suggesting that we believe otherwise is an insult.

On the contrary, we can use the mathematics of probability to make useful predictions (such as weather predictions), *BECAUSE* God has Sovereignly ordained that we would be able to do so.

So, Kevin, are you saying that God is NOT able to ordain mathematics in such a way that probabilities would come in very handy? If that is what you are saying, then it appears that *you* are the one denying His Sovereignty, not Scott and I.





[Edited on 9-21-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[kceaster]

Joseph...

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by kceaster
Because you do as James suggests, "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit'; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that."

It's pretty clear to me I am dumber than you guys. I'll stay back here in the dark ages with my thinking that God is sovereign in all things. Y'all go ahead and keep planning on probabilities.

Kevin,

Please apologize to Scott and me for implicitly slandering the two of us. Scott and I both 100% believe that God controls every event, no matter what. God is Sovereign. Suggesting that we believe otherwise is an insult.

On the contrary, we can use the mathematics of probability to make useful predictions (such as weather predictions), *BECAUSE* God has Sovereignly ordained that we would be able to do so.

So, Kevin, are you saying that God is NOT able to ordain mathematics in such a way that probabilities would come in very handy? If that is what you are saying, then it appears that *you* are the one denying His Sovereignty, not Scott and I.





[Edited on 9-21-2005 by biblelighthouse]

I'll say I'm sorry, but I'm offended, too. I could say that you've equally slandered me because I'm not giving God credit for working out His decree with mathematical precision.

I'm not sure why you've got such a interest in science and math as it comes to God's universe. But I just don't see it the way you do. We don't agree when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sorry I offended you. But there are two principles that I really don't think you or Scott have addressed adequately. The first was from Proverbs 16 and the second is from James 4. I think both of these clearly leave mathematical probability out of the picture when we think about God and His decretive will.

And I'm not saying we can't predict the weather with some measure of certainty. Jesus addressed the fact that we can read the signs of the winds, but not the signs of the times. When it comes to spiritual discernment about God and the way He upholds His creation, we can't use a slide rule.

This is just my opinion, don't let it bother you. I am not your judge. But as for me, I would rather err on the side of caution. I will not attribute God's actions to probability. And saying that the odds are such and such that God does this or that, or even saying that something will happen within a set of odds means that God is not absolute. It's like saying, "I knew God was going to make that happen." And I'm sorry guys, we can't say that about our next breath even though the odds are good we'll live well into our seventies.

God upholds all things by the word of His power, not by the numbers of probability.

In Christ,

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Please apologize to Scott and me for implicitly slandering the two of us. Scott and I both 100% believe that God controls every event, no matter what. God is Sovereign. Suggesting that we believe otherwise is an insult.

On the contrary, we can use the mathematics of probability to make useful predictions (such as weather predictions), *BECAUSE* God has Sovereignly ordained that we would be able to do so.

So, Kevin, are you saying that God is NOT able to ordain mathematics in such a way that probabilities would come in very handy? If that is what you are saying, then it appears that *you* are the one denying His Sovereignty, not Scott and I.

I'll say I'm sorry, but I'm offended, too. I could say that you've equally slandered me because I'm not giving God credit for working out His decree with mathematical precision.

Kevin, I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you, either. I was just irked at the moment.

Originally posted by kceaster

I'm not sure why you've got such a interest in science and math as it comes to God's universe. But I just don't see it the way you do. We don't agree when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sorry I offended you. But there are two principles that I really don't think you or Scott have addressed adequately. The first was from Proverbs 16 and the second is from James 4. I think both of these clearly leave mathematical probability out of the picture when we think about God and His decretive will.

I think these passages are quite clear. They both say that God controls everything down to the last detail. Absolutely nothing is left up to chance. You and I agree on that. (By the way, R.C. Sproul's book, "Not a Chance" is really good on this subject.)

But the Proverbs 16:33 reminds me of something else:
Some things (such as the roll of dice) are apparently random to us. Let me be clear and say that these things are of course NOT truly random . . . that which God perfectly controls could hardly be called random. But that does not stop the roll of the dice from appearing to be random, and it does not stop the mathematics of probability from being useful.

However, because of Proverbs 16:33 and James 4, perhaps the word "probability" is itself the problem. There is nothing wrong with the mathematics behind it which God has ordained. But the word "probability" itself is problematic, because it suggests that randomness is a real thing, and not just an appearance.

Originally posted by kceaster

And I'm not saying we can't predict the weather with some measure of certainty. Jesus addressed the fact that we can read the signs of the winds, but not the signs of the times.

Kevin, please think about what you just said. How exactly is it that we can predict the weather with a fair amount of accuracy? Are you aware that the mathematics of probability are used to predict the weather? Thus, even if the word "probability" is wrong, the mathematics behind it have still proven to be very useful to us.

Originally posted by kceaster

This is just my opinion, don't let it bother you. I am not your judge. But as for me, I would rather err on the side of caution. I will not attribute God's actions to probability.

Again, God determines everything. Nothing truly happens by "probability". Nevertheless, every time you roll the dice during a board game, you prove the fact that God has Sovereignly chosen to make His Sovereign decrees appear random to us, even though we know better.

Originally posted by kceaster

And saying that the odds are such and such that God does this or that, or even saying that something will happen within a set of odds means that God is not absolute. It's like saying, "I knew God was going to make that happen."

No, not at all. The mathematics of probability never give us 100% perfect results, so we can never say "I knew God was going to make that happen."

Rather, it's like saying, "This is usually how God works, and God is faithful, so this is what I expect. Nevertheless, it is possible that He will choose to work differently."

Originally posted by kceaster

And I'm sorry guys, we can't say that about our next breath even though the odds are good we'll live well into our seventies.

Do you really believe the "odds are good" you will live into your seventies? Or do you count it just as likely that you will die tomorrow? Of course either could happen in God's providence. But I'll bet you lean much more towards thinking you'll live for decades more, rather than just hours more. Why is that, if you have absolutely no trust whatsoever in the mathematics of probability?

Originally posted by kceaster

God upholds all things by the word of His power, not by the numbers of probability.

Amen! I certainly agree with that statement.