Math Proves Christ's Resurrection?

Question

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.

Answer 1

Amen!!!!

Answer 2

That is such absolute bunk that I'm amazed that anyone could take it seriously. The four "facts" you mention are not factual at all. The probabilities you list are just pulled out of the air, and are arguably off by several orders of magnitude. (just because there are only two choices does not mean their probability is equal. If it did, then for example the world would be half theists and half atheists.) Item #3 is a totally meaningless claim. Item #4 is also meaningless: Christ's resurrection is reported in the gospels, a posteriori probability of it not being reported is 0.0. It is absolutely meaningless to talk about the a priori probability.

You are clearly extremely biased to want your conclusion to be true. Professor Swinburne is also cleary biased to want the conclusion to be true. He's also pretty clearly not able to make a proper argument from probability.

Answer 3

what an idiotic professor. logic and mathematics have nothing to do with that guy. i cant believe they hire this trash at oxford.

1. the probability of the easter bunny's existence is one in two. either it exists or it doesnt.
2. the probability that the EB came into my house and gave me chocolate this year is one in two.
3. the evidence of the EBs existence is an argument for the tooth fairy, and santa clause.
4. the probability of these mythical creatures not being reported in the newspapers is 3 in 10.
5. considering all these factors together, there is a .333 in 1000 chances that the EB, the toothfairy, and santa clause are not true.

it works both ways, you know. the tooth fairy is my heavenly lord and saviour now, screw jesus.

Answer 4

There is little reliable evidence that the vast majority of the disciples were ever martyred. Contemporary sources only name three: James of Zebedee and St Stephen in the New Testament and James the Just according to Josephus. The earliest sources after the first century are Tertullian, writing about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul 130 years after the event. This in itself is suspicious, but even more so are many of the other apostles' martyrdoms; evidence for Philip's martyrdom, for example, doesn't turn up until almost 300 years afterwards, hardly trustworthy. Records of the persecution of Christians in the first century are sporadic and usually the result of individual governor's policies, like Pliny the Elder or [possibly] as a response to specific events like the great fire of Rome. Your assumption that someone would have exposed their lies is equally weak. The vast majority of people who were the new converts of the Christian religion were poor indentured laborers in Macedonia, Greece, Turkey etc. Christianity was not a rich man's religion, nor would it have appealed to them. Early Christians simply could not afford to leave their land to go on a fact-finding mission to Judaea to check out the story. They were as much dependent on the trustworthiness of the disciples as you are. There are no historical records of mass conversions, as you claim. The only such records we might have come from the Bible, which has an obvious self interest. You are, again, placing a huge and unrealistic amount of faith in the testimony of these people. Some elements of the Bible do, to its credit, portray the disciples in a negative light. Others, which you conveniently failed to notice, do not. Luke and Matthew, while copying Mark's account ad verbatim, deliberately left out parts where Jesus failed to perform a miracle and where the disciples demanded that he do so. Both are embarrassing to them, hence the reason they were cut. If Mark's account had not survived, we would have no way of knowing. Saul had a vision which he himself never described; the only description we get is through the Acts of the Apostles, probably authored by Luke. Luke clearly doctored information in the Bible for the sake of argument, such as when he stated that Jesus rose from the dead in Jerusalem, not Galilee, in what most believe to be an attempt to convert Jewish people living in Jerusalem. I see him as perfectly capable of embellishing his story.

Answer 5

Ridiculous

Answer 6

Using math to prove God kinda takes the fun out of the whole "faith is the belief in things unseen" part of religion.

Believe or don't, but don't to convine me into believing.

Answer 7

One in one thousand. How is one in one thousand proof? That's like saying that every one who plays the lottery will win. You should really work on your interpretation of "proof". If I make one basket out of every one thousand attempts, is that proof that I am a good basketball player? Is that proof that I am Jesus? Think about it chum. That makes probability .00001 percent. Not even one whole tenth of a percent.

Answer 8

Looks like your odds are slightly over 1 in 5, even with those arbitrary odds. Not doubting, but you need to find another way to push the faith....

Answer 9

Even a dopehead like myself can see that this line of reasoning doesn't stand a chance in hell at succeding in making someone who wasn't religous, suddenly become saved. The math doesn't even add up for one

Answer 10

LOL! At least, I hope that you aren't making a serious argument there. And I agree with the above statement. I love the purple suit too. Where can I get one for myself!

Answer 11

Oh, yeah...yet ANOTHER whacko, trying to use "science" and "Math" to "Prove" "God's" existence!!! Can you also prove the existence of the 4th dimension? The continent of Atlantis? Aliens? (Actually, that'd probably be a LOT easier!)...and so on....