 Thomas P. Flint argues that Hasker’s attempt to solve the problem of prophecy from within the constraints imposed by open theism is inadequate. Flint argues that if people are truly free in a sense that implies future contingency, then not even God could know very much about the future based upon present trends and tendencies alone. This is because the probability of a particular future contingent event is very low (when it is identified in some detail), so low that God would not have much justification for believing that it would occur specifically (see Flint 1998, 102–5). As an example, Flint points to John 6:64, which seems to imply that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him. How could this be, Flint wonders, when the probability that Judas would betray Jesus was so low? He also points out that Hasker faces a dilemma here that other open theists share, namely, that if they insist that the probabilities of future contingent events are high enough to justify God in making predictions about the future, then God actually doesn’t take much of a risk in creating the world. This is problematic for some open theists, who claim that their view has the virtue that God takes certain risks in creating the world; see Flint 1998, 104–6.)