Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Math Proves Christ's Creation
Replies:
5
Last Post:
Feb 1, 2013 6:55 AM




Re: Math Proves Christ's Creation
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:14 PM


On 1/30/2013 3:00 AM, BroilJAB wrote: > Oxford University professor Richard Swinburne > has done the math. Using logic and mathematics, > he has created a formula that shows a 97 percent > certainty that Jesus Christ was resurrected.
Well, he's wrong.
> The probability of God's existence is one in two.
That means there's a 50% probability your deity exists, and a 50% probability it doesn't. Fine so far.
> The probability that God became incarnate, also.
Since there's only a 50% chance it exists at all, that means there's a *25%* probability it incarnated.
0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25
> The chance of Christ's resurrection not being > reported by the gospels a probability of one in 10.
I'd like to know how Dr. Swinburne arrived at that number, but taking it at face value (for the sake of discussion), that means that your 25%possibly incarnated deity had a 90% chance of being so reported, meaning a total probability of that event being 22.5%.
0.9 x (0.5 x 0.5) = 0.9 x 0.25 = 0.225
Mind you this holds if and only if the deity exists *and* it incarnated *and* was so reported.
> Considering all these factors together, there is a > 1 in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
No, it means there's a .775 probability the report of an incarnated deity is false.
1  0.9 x (.5 x .5) = 1  (0.9 x 0.25) = 1  .225 = .775
This is the case if the deity does not exist, did not incarnate, *or* was not correctly so reported.
> With the hard evidence of math, Dr.Swinburne has > left atheists denying hard math.
Math is not evidence of anything but math, and Dr. Swinburne got the math wrong.
Mark L. Fergerson



