Math Proves Christ's Resurrection?
It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now.
Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion, has seemingly done the impossible. Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News.
This stunning conclusion was made based on a series of complex calculations grounded in the following logic:
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
49 comments
Bad math and figures from the ass abound.
Where do the odds of God's existence come from? Or Him becoming incarnate? Even if these figures are true, we're left with about a twenty five percent chance of God becoming incarnate. 4 is a non-sequitor.
So, if all these numbers offered were true, there would be a one in four chance of the resurrection being true. Unfortunately, the facts dwelt in Dick's anus before being shat into this article.
This relies on one basic assumption...
The people involved were not lying in the first place. It doesn't factor in any bit of human nature. Also, just because there are two answers doesn't mean they're equal in occurance.
I'm still a little confused where the 1000 came from though.
ME AM GOOD AT MATH TOO
Wrong!
#1 and 2 confuse probability with possibility. That's like saying "the probability of you winning the lottery is one in two, either you win the lottery or you don't." Actually the probability of winning the lottery is less than one in a million, depending on your state's system.
#3 assumes that these two things are intrinsically linked. If they are, explain judaism.
#4 is just batshit insane. The gospels, by there very nature, report the ressurection, making it a sure thing (one in one). Saying that they potentially might or might not have, well where the hell does the one in ten figure come in?
#5 a one in two chance*a one in two chance* 9 out of 10 chance = 1/2*1/2*9/10=9/40. If #1 and #2 were interlinked, 18/40. Not that it matters anyhow since this is all crazy ass numerology.
Hopefully Oxfords math and statistics department marched across the campus and de-pantsed him for his ignorance.
Isn't 3. Evidence of God, 0?
I thought when you compounded probablities you multiplied them togther, and anything multiplied by zero is, ummmmmm. ZERO!
I see nothing related to maths in this summary. If anything, they're truth table statements, and dubious ones at that. Too bad the media doesn't understand the difference between probability and the results of a truth table.
1. The probably of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence is one in two. That is, the Flying Spaghetti Monster either exists or doesn't.
2. The probability that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mountains and midgits is also one in two.
3. The evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence is an argument for piracy.
4. The chance of piracy not being reduced by global warming has a probability of one in 10.
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that global warming is not true.
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Watch as this moronic "study" becomes widespread EVIDENCE amongst fundies that Jesus was resurrected.
Oh btw, why is it 999/1000 in one section, but 97% elsewhere? They can't even stay internally consistent.
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't. The arrogance of the author of this nonsense is astounding. The God he is referring to is exclusively the Christian god. He is ignoring all of the other gods that have been invented during the ages, which are thousands.
This is so fucked, how could a university professor come up with shit like this? I'd understand if it was a "professor" Hovind or Gastrich.
image
Richard Swinburne: Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford
Emeritus Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford Fellow of the British Academy, Fundie Idiot.
Swinburne is a very reputed Christian philosopher. His argument for the resurrection is invalid, of course, but it is not as silly as this out-of context summary makes it seem.His reasoning certainly is not "Either God exists or not, therefore the probability is 1/2".
There is a review of Swinburne's book here .
I think this quote should be removed.
Yes, Jeremy, but he had argued for that claim in a previous book -and not just by saying "one or the other, therefore 1/2". See here .
Don't get me wrong. I am an atheist, and I think Swinburne arguments and probabilities are crap. But they are not fundie-moronic, Banana-Argument-like crap, and I don't think they belong in FSTDT. Anselm's ontological argument is even more obviously crap, but you wouldn't quote a philosopher who defended it here.
Yes, Jeremy, but he had argued for that claim in a previous book -and not just by saying "one or the other, therefore 1/2". See here.
Yes, agreed. I still think he's an idiot.
The quote should be credited to the author of the news article (Netscape News), not Richard Swinburne, and should remain on the board.
Netscape News? Not "The Onion"?
Good grief! As math-impaired as I am, I can still tell that this is complete hogwash. Instead of publicizing this, Oxford should have had this lunatic quietly committed and burned all evidence for it outside of his psych profile.
~David D.G.
1. Just because there are 2 possibilities, does not mean that each possibility is equally likely. Right out of the gate this guy's logic stumbles badly.
2. See 1.
3. What evidence for God's existence? Even if there were some evidence for God's existence, that means nothing in the question of Christ's resurrection.
4. Christ's resurrection is written of in the gospels, so the question is was it real event. Any establishment of odds on this question is nothing more than a hopeful guess.
5. Considering no evidence was used in this exercise and several wild assumption were used, the likelihood of this spiel having any validity is nil.
Okay, this is the least of this post's problems, but I thought it was funny:
He says that the formula proves the resurection with 97% certainty, but later says there is only a 1 in 1000 chance it didn't happen, which is 99.9% certainty.
how's this logic, christ's supporters fled at his arrest, none of them got to see the crucifixtion. the "secret follower" is too convienent to be true. the whole passion is prophecy historized instead of actual events..
<<< 1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't. >>>
That may be the single worst abuse of probability I've ever seen. (Okay, not quite. There was a moron who insisted that there if evolution was true, there should be a 923% chance that humans would have been split into two species in the past twenty years.)
Not only are there far more than two possibilities, they are not guaranteed to be equally likely. Hell, even flipping a coin isn't quite so perfectly random (it is, in fact, technically deterministic - there are just so many variables involved that we don't have sufficient information to calculate what will happen - but I digress).
<<< 2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two. >>>
This fails for the same reason as above.
<<< 3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection. >>>
A) What evidence?
B) Why is evidence for God automatically evidence for the resurrection in the first place?
C) With this being unquantified, it makes any numbers that use this as a premise completely meaningless.
<<< 4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10. >>>
A) Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?
B) It is irrelevant, since we know that it has been reported.
<<< 5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true." >>>
This fails on so many levels:
1) Since all three of your premises must be true for the resurrection to be true, you must multiply the probabilities of them in order to find the overall probability. Multiplying the probabilities that they are false does not give you the probability that they are not all true, it gives you the probability that they are all false (what if God exists but never became incarnate, for instance?).
2) Even under your mistaken method of calculation, you should have arrived at the figure of 1 in 40 (which is approximately the 97% found in the paragraph, but not even close to 1 in 1000).
3) The probability of the resurrection being reported, if it were true, is irrelevant, so even by your mistaken method and with your mistaken figures, 1 in 4 is a better value.
4) All the premises are so absurd that any data derived from them is laughable even if you use the correct method.
1. The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.
Nope, thats the 2 alterntives, probablilty is different.
2. The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.
Again, alternatives, not a bloody probability.
3. The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.
?
4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
Where the hell did that come from
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
but there's already half a chance (according to you) that god isn't true, what the hell happened to you maths?
Sierra, I have not read his entire book but skimmed through it once. Putting my recollections together with what this review says, what I get is that he makes many separate arguments for God's existence: that it is the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe, that materialistic explanations for human features like rationality and morality are less plausible than God, and so on. He argues that each argument confers some probability to the proposition that God exists, and that all the probabilities from different arguments added give at more than 1/2, making it rational to believe in God. His book on the resurrection seems to start with a probability of 1/2 for God as a "conservative" estimate.
Of course that an atheist would surely be quick to spot lots of places where the probability assignments are wildly optimistic or commit fallacies (some are discussed in the linked review). But a serious refutation would have to examine his argument carefully and step by step.
Notice how he is a theologian, not a mathematician. How does he come up with these probabilities anyway?
I have a bag with a red marble, green marble, and a blue marble. The chance of picking a red marble is 1 in 2, either I do or I dont.
I am certainly not good at math, I ditched the subject as soon as I could (which meant in my 11th school year), but I don't think math works that way.
The world either goes on tomorrow, or it is destroyed. But it's much more probable that it does go on, isn't it?
The evidence for God's existence? How did that pop in there? And even if he does exist, how does it relate to any resurrection?
To me it seems like they are leaping hither and thither, comparing not apples with oranges, but apples with iron ore and oranges with snow.
There are an infinite number of possible gods, of which yours is just one. The "principle of indifference ", which you applied when arriving at your figure "one in two", would mean the actual probability of God existing is 1/oo , carry on your calculation from there.
The "probably" of Shiva's existence is also one in two.
Wasn't Krishna also resurrected? And, isn't that story older than the one about Jesus?
Guess all your nonsense factors can also say that there is a one in 1000 chance that the Krishna resurrection is not true, too.
Math Proves Christ's Resurrection?
No.
This isn't even consistent with itself.
Using logic and mathematics, he has created a formula that he says shows a 97 percent certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected by God the Father, report The Age and Catholic News.
.....then.....
5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
.....which would be a 99.9% chance that it is true. (which is bull)
It seems to me, that if you accept all those odds, it's 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, so a 25% chance of it being true, since 3 doesn't mean anything really, and 4 is pointless.
The probability of you catching fire in the next five minutes is one in two. It will happen or it will not.
The chances of winning the lottery are one in two. You will win or you won't as above.
If you buy ten lottery tickets you are guaranteed to win on a least one ticket that didn't randomly burst into flames.
See how that works?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.