Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 08-08-2005, 12:11 AM

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...n/resurrection

So "Simpleburne" has mathematically proved the resurrection? Not quite.

Quote:

The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.

The probability that Swinburne fucked a monkey today is one in two. Either Swinburne did or didn't.

Quote:

The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two.

The probability that we are correct in guessing the thoughts of an infinite, self-sustaining, omnipotent omniscient and perfect being is improbability.

Quote:

The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection.

The evidence for Swinburn'es sex with zoo animals is evidence for El Nino. Wait, that doesn't follow either....

Quote:

The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.

The chance of the gospels being historically reliable sources is zero.

Quote:

Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.

Considering all the above data, there is a 1 in 1 chance Swinburne is full of shizen.

Quote:

"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."

Lemme get this straight?

So God probably exists.
A God who probably exists would probably become incanate.
He would probably be like Jesus.
The evidence for the resurrection confirms them all and God's likely existence is evidence for the resurrection.

So is God's existence evidence for the Rez or is the Rez evidence for God's existence? Not clear on this point.

Swinburne's points more accurately:

--God probably does not exist.
--God--a perfect and infinite being who is self-sustained and needs nothing would probably not want to create humans.
--Why would an infinite being want to be a poor, ignorant, illiterate, rabble-rousing Jew in the first third of the first century who was beaten, humiliated and crucified for sedition and anarchy?
--There is no good evidence for the resurrection and even if there was some Hume's method of evaluating personal claims to miracles holds true (greater miracle).

Quote:

The calculations that Swinburne says prove the resurrection are detailed in his book, "The Resurrection of God Incarnate."

Why is netscape homepage publishing this bullshit?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

The probability that Swinburne fucked a monkey today is one in two. Either Swinburne did or didn't.

This is an elementary error in using probability theory. Not everything is a coin toss. Did this get published in a scholarly journal too?

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 08-08-2005, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

This is an elementary error in using probability theory. Not everything is a coin toss. Did this get published in a scholarly journal too?

sincerely,
Peter Kirby

The 50/50 is usually used because it represents "maximum ignorance" on the issue.

Vinnie

Toto · 08-08-2005, 12:30 AM

The Resurrection of God Incarnate is searchable on Amazon (no reviews yet?)

There's been other discussion of this on the Board.

Santas little helper · 08-08-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

The 50/50 is usually used because it represents "maximum ignorance" on the issue.

No , maximum ignorance is when you can't even assign probabilities.

If that guy wasn't already a university professor I would have thought he
was just writing a BS book to make money off the gullible.

Toto · 08-08-2005, 01:09 AM

Here's a thread from 2002 on this topic: Math does not prove the resurrection

I thought I had seem something more recent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2005, 12:30 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Resurrection of God Incarnate is searchable on Amazon (no reviews yet?) There's been other discussion of this on the Board.

08-08-2005, 01:09 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's a thread from 2002 on this topic: Math does not prove the resurrection I thought I had seem something more recent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.