Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Math Proves Christ's Creation
Replies: 5   Last Post: Feb 1, 2013 6:55 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
nuny@bid.ness

Posts: 223
Registered: 2/25/07
Re: Math Proves Christ's Creation
Posted: Jan 30, 2013 3:14 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.