|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Anything Goes! > Math Proves Christ's Resurrection? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Anthony G Williams
Greybeard
      
Date Joined Apr 2007
Total Posts : 395
| Posted 3/28/2008 10:41 AM (GMT -4) |   |
From http://netscape.compuserve.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20080323-0700
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.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidences are witnesses in the four gospels. That's only five percent of the evidence," Swinburne said in a lecture he gave at the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne . "We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first whether there's reason to suppose there is a God. Secondly, if we have reason to suppose he would become incarnate, and thirdly, if he did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did." He says that even Jesus' life is not enough proof. However, the resurrection is "God's signature," which shows "his approval of Jesus' teaching." The calculations that Swinburne says prove the resurrection are detailed in his book, "The Resurrection of God Incarnate.
It seems to me that there is a huge logical flaw in the reasoning. I won't argue with the point that the probability of God existing is one in two (50%). However, points 2, 3 and 4 all depend on God existing, so only affect that one in two chance: they have no bearing on the one in two probability that God does not exist, which remains at 50%.
To work through Professor Swinburne's calculations more logically:
The probability that God is incarnate is one in two (the first probability) multiplied by one in two (the second one), i.e. one in four (or 25%).
The proposition that God was resurrected depends on his being incarnate, so is a fraction of that one in four figure and must be less than 25%. So even accepting his proposition (as I understand it) that there was only a one in ten chance that the reports of the resurrection were wrong (where did he pluck that figure from?) the chance that the resurrection happened was about one in four-and-a-half (roughly), or 22 percent - not quite the same as 97 percent mentioned, let alone the one in a thousand chance of being wrong (how does that match up with 97%?) also mentioned!
Tony Williams
Scales (2007), The Foresight War (2004)
Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/ >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
H.P. Lovesauce
Necronomicondiment
Date Joined Jul 2007
Total Posts : 573
| Posted 3/28/2008 1:16 PM (GMT -4) | | | Well, his math is more rigorous than the "1 Cross + 3 Nails = 4 Given" I see around here. | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 3/28/2008 1:40 PM (GMT -4) | | Tony I'm starting to notice a pattern in your conversational posts. Taken all together it's as if faith is a wound in your side and you have to keep picking the scab off. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but once in awhile you could throw me a curve and post something not mocking or attacking or ridiculing, just as a change of pace, lol.
I googled Swinburne. He does have the degrees, hold the position, and place his pedgree out for public consumption.
He wrote a simple theorm then extrapolated out remaining true to the foundation. I'm not sure the qualifies for loss of tenure. It's theoretical math, yeah?
I mean, I'm quite sure he thought about the arguments against his equation and worked through them before putting them out there to be looked at by qualified people.
I find it doubtful that someone without his qualifications is easily or simply going to really refute his process. --which maybe indeed be refutable. If Stephen Hawkins (he's dead now, right?) comes out and says "you forgot to carry the one" then okay, I'm on board.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1226
| Posted 3/28/2008 1:45 PM (GMT -4) | | Swinburne is an Oxford professor ... of theology, not math. He's written a lot of books and probably will have his job a long time.
That said, his math here sucks, Nathan. Look at the math, not the larger issues of god and heaven etc., and without a knee-jerk defense of an emotional subject. The nice thing about math is it either works or it doesn't, regardless of ideology and philosophy. Just look at Swinburne's math, and then tell us if it works or not.
It doesn't work, as Anthony clearly explained.
But I will throw you a bone ... maybe there is a god and maybe he'll chuck me and Anthony into hell for looking too closely at Swinburne's math. But I'd put the odds of that at less than 97 percent.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 3/28/2008 1:59 PM (GMT -4) | | Well--I'm not going to start arguing for ID now just because I like the way you construct an argument and how I admire the way having a foil brings out the best in you, Steve 
What I am going to do is read a little bit about Swineburne. The reason is this. My wife is a professor and a Mensa member. She is a prof of early lit which is what she holds a PhD in. She has a masters in ed. She has a 4 year degree with a double major in English and Journalism and holds a minor in theology. She also roots for the *&^%ing Seahawks which shows even smart people can be idiots.
Now. Why did I just shamelessly brag? Well, I love her and I'm quite happy a knuckle-dragger like me got to marry her. But my point is this: I've never met an academic scholar whose resume didn't include a wide range of topics that they couldn't speak to. I've never met one who didn't realize that as soon as they say A is A, didn't realize that some big gun with grant money on the line wasn't going to come out and say A is B. So they always dot i's and cross t's.
I've also noticed in my professional time as a emt and then nurse how much smart but unqualified laymen (and sometimes the idiots too) like to argue with the physisians and the specialists.
So based on all of that personal experience I'm guessing that A] Swineburne does have some mathematical qualifications or a partner who does. That B] he would have checked his process for obvious glaring errs before daring to publish such a scandalous and firestorm generating idea. And C] the chances of someone without a post graduate degree spotting an elephant of an error that holds acctual water are nil.
Now I mean all that subjectively at this point as I haven't researched Swinburne. He could have got his gig at Oxford because he's a one-legged member of a dying ethnic group and he's got an IQ of 98 and a degree from State U in basket weaving. I'm just following what my gut and personal experiences tells me about armchair observers vs credentialed academics.
But I could be wrong.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1226
| Posted 3/28/2008 2:40 PM (GMT -4) | | You know what I find interesting, Nathan? I find it fascinating that when someone argues for god, you insist that professionalism etc. would never, ever allow them to publish something that wasn't just hunky-dory perfect, and would never allow them to let preconceived notions color their findings, or let them weigh the evidence in such a way as to prove what they already believe, while ignoring evidence that doesn't support them, etc.
Yet when someone argues in a way that you think goes against god, religion, etc., then it's all just preconceived notions and they're scared to proclaim anything that is pro-god because all the other profs will laugh at them and call them names.
There's a really, really easy way to cut through all this preconceived notions crap. Just look at the man's math.
I also find it fascinating that, instead of looking at his math, you just reiterated your previous argument. You didn't address the man's math at all.
And just for the record, let me say I haven't A) called Swinburne an idiot -- I'm sure he's a very intelligent fellow with a wide variety of interests; B) declared there is no god or that Christ didn't rise from the dead; or C) scoffed at Swinburne's religious beliefs. All I'm saying is his math, as presented in the first post of this thread, sure looks faulty to me -- and most of Swinburne's argument seems to have very little to do with math and more to do with faulty logic, anyway. (As Anthony already pointed out.)
Look at the guy's math, Nathan, and if it adds up go ahead and defend it. Show me how it adds up and I'll concede. All the rest of the crossing t's and dotting i's stuff is just smoke and mirrors that have nothing to do with math and logic.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1226
| Posted 3/28/2008 3:18 PM (GMT -4) | | Nathan: Yes, some of my observations were channeled from previous discussions between the two of us. And my points still hold true.
Swinburne has a degree? So what? I'm not impressed by arguments from authority, anyway. I don't believe anything just because an Oxford don says it, or just because Richard Dawkins says it, or just because Einstein said it, or just because Jason Lisle said it, or Christ said it, or the Buddha said it, or ... you get the point.
I'll give you this: Swinburne says he's arguing from math and logic, and both of those are disciplines that have rules, etc., to cut through smoke and mirrors. Using those tools, one can hold out a proposition and pretty much compel any reasonable person to say, "You know what? You're right."
So ... if Swinburne's math and logic are any good, we'll be seeing it all over the news any day now. All those other professors (who also studied hard, earned their degrees, would never think of publishing something without crossing and dotting the appropriate letters, etc.) will come on board, swayed by the power of Swineburne's impeccable, unassailable logic and math, and declare that the resurrection is almost certainly factual and that god's existance is all but proven.
When that happens, I'll come back here and admit that Swinburne's math and logic were spot on.
-------
I edited the above to correct my misspelling of Swinburne's name. Apologies to the man from Oxford.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 3/28/2008 3:40 PM (GMT -4) | | Sounds good.
I'm not arguing from authority. I didn't say his degree made him irrefutable--I merely think it gives us a bit of information: we agree (yes?) that it's rigourous to get a PhD. It extremely rigorous to get a job as Prof--and at school with a international heavyweight rep like Oxford? Come on. Oxford don's are human. But they don't get to be Oxford don's by being sloppy.
That doesn't mean Swineburne's right, by all means. That in fact wasn't my point. I'm merely handicapping the %-chance that a lay person is going to see a flaw in the math that a guy with that kind of pedigree or his editors would have missed.
As if it were a Superbowl with a guy on the internet's credentials making up the team roster on one side and Dick's making up the team roster on the otherside. And the bet isn't does or doesn't god exist, but rather the bet is whether a guy on a SF board is going to catch a logical construct that an Oxford prof missed before putting out a paper.
If you had to bet the house where would you be? If you know Tony Sporano held the vig on your ticket and would be showing up to collect--where would you put your money?
That's all I'm saying--is that unreasonable?
I doubt that even if his math holds you see it "all over" the news though it might get some coverage here and there between Clinton's sniper, Obama's pastor and McCains dementia, and the economy going boom--I mean when you look at it it's just a percentage based on a hypothetical arraingment of numbers--not a picture of the Virgin Marry in a stain on the side of a house or something *really* irrefutable like that.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 3/28/2008 3:52 PM (GMT -4) | | I found him. Here's his list of credentials:
Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford
Emeritus Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford
Fellow of the British Academy.
Interests
All the central questions of philosophy.
The meaning and justification of the central claims of Christianity.
Education
1952 Open Scholarship in Classics to Exeter College, Oxford.
1954-7 Undergraduate at Oxford, reading for B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics obtained with First Class Honours in 1957.
1957-9 Read B.Phil in Philosophy at Oxford.
1958-61 Fereday Fellow, St. John's College, Oxford.
1959-60 Read Oxford Diploma in Theology obtained with distinction in 1960.
1961-63 Leverhulme Research Fellow in the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds.
1960-1963 Research Fellowships devoted to learning science and the history of science.
Appointments
Lecturer (1963-69), and Senior Lecturer (1969-72), in Philosophy, University of Hull.
Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Maryland, 1969-1970.
Professor of Philosophy, University of Keele, 1972-85.
Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford, 1985-2002..
Visiting Lectureships
1975-78 Wilde Lecturer in Natural and Comparative Religion, University of Oxford.
1977 Forwood Lecturer in the History and Philosophy of Religion, University of Liverpool.
1980 Marrett Memorial Lecturer, Exeter College, Oxford.
1981 Special Lecturer (in Theology), University of London.
1982 Distinguished Visiting Scholar, University of Adelaide.
1983 Theology 'Faculty' Lecturer, University College, Cardiff.
1982-84 Gifford Lecturer, University of Aberdeen.
1987 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Syracuse University, Spring Semester.
1987 Edward Cadbury Lecturer, University of Birmingham.
1990 Wade Memorial Lecturer, St Louis University.
1992 Indian Council for Philosophical Research, visiting Lecturer.
1992 Dotterer Lecturer, Penn State University.
1997 Aquinas Lecturer, Marquette University.
2002 (March )Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of Rome (La Sapienza).
----******-----
Now. Tony can post his academic credentials and we can start handicapping this thing for real.
Or...we can do what I just did. Cut-and-paste Tony's objections and contact the guy by email. Maybe he'll respond.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1226
| Posted 3/28/2008 4:12 PM (GMT -4) | | Impressive list of credentials, but still just an argument from authority -- meaningless in terms of math and logic.
Swinburne's premise three, for instance, doesn't logically follow from premises one and two. No matter how many degrees Swinburne has. And I'd love to see his explanation of premise four. How did he derive those odds?
By the way, the odds of Beowulf slaying Grendel NOT being reported by the survivors in the mead hall are 1 in 8,345,982.75.
Oh, heck, I'll just jump in with both feet:
1) The odds that Beowulf existed are one in two; either he did or he didn't.
2) The odds that Beowulf slew giant monsters with his bare hands also are one in two; either he did or he didn't.
3) The evidence for Beowulf's existance is evidence that he killed Grendel's mom under the water.
4) The odds of Beowulf slaying Grendel NOT being reported by the survivors in the mead hall are 1 in 8,345,982.75.
Considering all of these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the tale of Beowulf slaying Grendel's mother is not true. That magically derives to a 97 percent probability that Beowulf slew Grendel's mother precisely as described in the epic poem. There you have it, math and logic in action.
If Professor Swinburne replies to your email, please share it with us.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
H.P. Lovesauce
Necronomicondiment
Date Joined Jul 2007
Total Posts : 573
| Posted 3/28/2008 4:27 PM (GMT -4) | | | Going back to what Jordan said--this may be somebody simply swiping Swinburne's good name as a cover for a, ah, less than intellectually rigorous postulation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Anaconda
Neophyte
Date Joined Dec 2007
Total Posts : 57
| Posted 3/28/2008 4:43 PM (GMT -4) | | |
If I buy one lottery ticket today, I will either win the jackpot or not tomorrow.
Probability is a number between zero and one, often expressed as a fraction.
My probability of winning the jackpot is about one divided by 14,000,000.
My probability of not winning the jackpot is about 13,999,999 divided by 14,000,000.
For practical purposes, these numbers are zero and one.
Statistically, I am more likely to be dead before the balls are drawn.
The learned man is having a laugh; he has succeeded in opening a debate.
Alec Anaconda, author of “Slaves of Janice”, “After Janice” and “Extreme Vengeance”. | | Back to Top | | |
| | |