http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/resurrection/resurrection

Quote :

"# The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't. # The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two. # The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection. # The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10. # Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true."

it looks like you don't need to take any math classes to teach at oxford.

8/18/2005 12:13:20 AM

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA JHAJAJHAJAJAASJAJDJDJAJAJAJDFGJAJKOMGLOLLERSIERTOGAHAD

Hey guys.

Either the sun will come up or it won't tomorrow. There's a one in two chance of it coming up.

8/18/2005 12:24:58 AM

There's a one in seven chance you'll get pounded in the ass next week.

8/18/2005 1:05:03 AM

Quote :

"Hi. You're probably new to the Wolf Web. In fact, I'm willing to bet you're new to college in general. It's an exciting time, isn't it? I'm sure that you have been exposed to many ideas and perspectives you'd never realized existed, and you're just bursting with enthusiasm at the thought of sharing a few ideas of your own with your peers now that you find yourself in an academic environment that seems perfectly suited to such an exchange. Why don't we go a little further? Odds are you consider yourself very intelligent. In fact, you're probably so intelligent that you've figured out all the quirks and kinks of organized religion--or at least Christianity. Yeah, that's it, isn't it? You were probably raised in a Christian household and resent that upbringing for limiting your personal freedoms, so it's only natural that you'd seek to undermine Christ's teachings and save others from having such a faulty belief system for their own good. Pretty cool of you, isn't it? You've really got it together. FUCK YOU YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT COLLEGE KID LET ME TELL YOU A SECRET NONE OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON RELIGION ARE RADICAL OR EVEN THOUGHT-PROVOKING IT'S NO SECRET YOU GOT THEM OFF A FUCKING WEBSITE WE'VE ALL READ THE PROSELYTIZER QUESTIONNAIRE TOO NOTHING YOU CAN SAY IS GOING TO LEND A FRESH OUTLOOK DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT FOR SEVERAL FUCKING CENTURIES NOW SOME OF THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE IN THE ANNALS OF HUMAN HISTORY HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO ANSWERING DEEPER THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS THAN YOUR PETTY BULLSHIT ABOUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPELS? I MEAN HOLY FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY COCKSUCKER WHO EVER NOTICED THAT OR SOMETHING?! WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU'RE STILL JUST A STUPID KID AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS SHAMEFUL INCONSIDERATE AND DISRESPECTFUL BECAUSE MAYBE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO LIVE ACCORDING TO A STRICT MORAL CODE AND MAYBE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY TO ACTUALLY TRY AND DEVELOP A STRONG, HONORABLE CHARACTER BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO ATTACK MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO PLAY THE VICTIM TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY "FORCE THEIR BELIEFS" ON YOU BY HANDING OUT A FUCKING PAMPHLET I MEAN HOLY FUCKING CHRIST WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS TEN TIMES WORSE GET OVER YOURSELF ALREADY THIS REBELLION AGAINST MOMMY AND DADDY ISN'T IMPRESSING ANYONE WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST YOU ARE NOT EVEN REMARKABLE STOP ARGUING WITH GARY HE IS MAKING A FOOL OF YOU I SWEAR UPON THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE PIERCED FUCKING JEW KING THAT IF YOU PULL THIS SALISBURYBOY, SYLVERSHADOW KIND OF SHIT ON ME YOU WORTHLESS WICCAN PANTYSTAIN I WILL SPLIT THE TENDER TISSUES OF YOUR WEEPING ASSHOLE WITH A HARDCOVER EDITION OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION OF THE HOLY FUCKING BIBLE YOU THINK YOU'RE SO FUCKING SMART I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU DO THE SAME SHIT WITH ANY RELIGION BESIDES CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM WITH SOME BOOK BESIDES THE BIBLE OR THE TORAH YOU AIDS-FELCHING CUM FLAKE SO PUT THAT IN YOUR FUCKING PIPE YOU JUST BOUGHT FROM BUDDHA'S BELLY THE FIRST WEEKEND YOU WERE UP HERE AND SMOKE IT YOU FUCKING FAGGOT COLLEGE KID and that's my word. "

8/18/2005 2:37:14 AM

I feel that rant is a bit harsh.

Shame on you Frosh.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:41 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2005 2:41:15 AM

that rant has nothing to do with this thread, unless it could be directed towards the Professor.

but on the "calculations" and the article - that's fine if every pseudo-science nutjob wants to try to prove the resurrection or that the earth is 10,000 years old or that it's possible to turn wine into human blood, but that shit doesn't belong in CNN. This article reports this guys findings as though this is truely scientifically and mathmatically credible.

Quote :

"It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now. This stunning conclusion was made based on a series of complex calculations grounded in the following logic:"

give me a damn break. The article does note that they are repeating what was originally reported in The Age and Catholic News, but on what basis did they select this particular article? What it for the entertainment value, or did they think that it actually had some backing? All we need now is anyone who reads CNN to be able to say "yeah, but i read a study a couple weeks ago where some PhD in England proved that Jesus was God's son, and, ummmm, yeah, that God created us."
Next thing we know they'll be teaching Intelligent Design in school. ...... oh, right.

8/18/2005 2:55:12 AM

8/18/2005 7:13:50 AM

That is the worst math I've ever heard. How can the probablitity of Jesus being resurrected be higher than the probability of God existing?

8/18/2005 10:56:26 AM

Also, it makes me sick to know this guy is probably going to make a ton of money off this.

8/18/2005 11:03:28 AM

Brilliant!

8/18/2005 11:04:27 AM

So given #1, there's a one in two chance of me winning the lotto.

Then if I buy two tickets, I'm guaranteed to win.

Awesome.

8/18/2005 11:06:39 AM

this guy is complete bullshit

also 1/1000=0

8/18/2005 11:42:10 AM

***Disclaimer**** I didn't read the thread to realize no one believes that bullshit argument. Here's my counter argument anyways.

The problem with this argument is the same problem with arguments that say evolution is "too unlikley to happen". The proponets are confusing fundamental randomness and seemingly random events.

You can set any problem up to seem less likley than it is, if we set the initial conditions right. For example, let's say that there is only a 50/50 chance of the sun coming up each day (either it does or it does not). Now I'm 23, so I've seen the sun come up thousands of time. This makes it seem very very very improbable that the sun will come up tomarrow (it would be like flipping heads almost 7 thousand times in a row). Am I scared that I wont be so lucky tomarrow? No.

The fact is that the sun comming up tomarrow isn't a fundamentally random process. According to physical laws the sun will continue to come up for a long time, until something happens to stop it. As far as I can see, nothing like that is going to happen. So rather than being afraid the world will end, I'm quite certain that the sun will come up tomarrow. The chances are far far far better than our inital conditions made it out to be.

It's the same problem with the Jesus resurrection idea. The way the Prof. set up the problem, it does seem very unlikley the resurrection didn't happen (just like my sun problem). But the fact is that doesn't matter. It either did happen or it didn't. It is not a fundamentally random problem. No maTTER how unlikley it might seem.

This argument hasn't done anyone any good. I recomend the Oxford guy go back to ST 101.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ``]

8/18/2005 12:48:41 PM

Quote :

"For example, let's say that there is only a 50/50 chance of the sun coming up each day (either it does or it does not). Now I'm 23, so I've seen the sun come up thousands of time. This makes it seem very very very improbable that the sun will come up tomarrow (it would be like flipping heads almost 7 thousand times in a row)."

Actually, the odds of the sun coming up tomorrow would be completely independent from what the sun did the day before.
Tomorrow it would be a 50/50 shot just like the day before.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2005 12:52:46 PM

Actually, reading The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, is a pretty good book regarding this topic. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who, after his wife converted to Christianity, did an investigation into the claims and stories about Jesus. He was an athiest (or at least an agnostic) while doing his investigation and, upon review of what he found, came to believe in Christ himself. Now, I know you are going to flame, but that's okay. Anyone arrogant enough to say they have an open mind and doesn't read the book doesn't really have an open mind now, do they?

8/18/2005 1:10:58 PM

Anyone who doesn't read that book is arrogant and closed-minded?

8/18/2005 1:12:50 PM

Locutus Zero

I have to admire your willingness to constantly stick your neck trying to argue with me just to get it chopped off. You got spunk kid. But here's the problem with what you're saying (a confusion many people have before taking finite math or another course involving probability). For simplicity lets stick with a coin flipping example.

Quote :

"Actually, the odds of the sun coming up tomorrow would be completely independent from what the sun did the day before. Tomorrow it would be a 50/50 shot just like the day before."

You are indeed very very right. The outcome of each experiment is independent of the outcome of all the other experiments preceding it. And for each experiment there are only two possible outcomes (heads or tails). So for each coin flip (or rising of the sun) both outcomes are equally likley.

So let's say we repeat this experiment 7001 times (like I propose in my problem). This means that there 2^7001 possible outcomes (2 outcomes for each of the 7001 trials). But we are interested only in the outcome all heads. Since this is only one of the many outcomes, and all outcomes are equally likley, the probability of getting that outcome is 1/(2^7001). IOW: It is very unlikley.

So you certainly are right, for each individual flip the probability is 50/50. In fact, for the very next flip (7002nd flip) the outcome is ALSO 50/50. But my problem wasn't about a single coin flip it was about a particular outcome of a series coin flips. IOW: I was interested in the probability of flipping all heads in a series of 7001 experiments.

Now I certainly hope you already knew that. I mean you're an engineer for goodness sakes.

But, in retrospect, it seems to me that my experiments aren't independent. The probability of the sun comming up tomarrow is dependent on the sun comming up today. So the probability would be even smaller. But that's enough math for me today.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ``]

8/18/2005 1:52:37 PM

Okay, that was a lot of text to say "yeah, yur right, but what I meant was..".
Also, I wasn't going to say "Maybe YOU should go back to ST 101." but now I guess I will.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2005 2:18:27 PM

Quote :

""# The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't. # The probability that God became incarnate, that is embodied in human form, is also one in two. # The evidence for God's existence is an argument for the resurrection. # The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10. # Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.""

These are the not logical arguments used by the professor. These are what CNN breaks them down into. some of y'all need reading fucking comprehension in order to understand the article.

8/18/2005 2:19:45 PM

Quote :

"Anyone arrogant enough to say they have an open mind and doesn't read the book doesn't really have an open mind now, do they?"

What if I'm open minded except for people who pass off bullshit as math?

8/18/2005 2:20:59 PM

I was going to say, I hope that's not what the professor's actual arguments are, because they are weak as hell.

Also, I seriously doubt any logical argument that attempts to prove this idea would actually work, since many of the steps would be based on assumptions that themselves can't actually be proven.

Ok, I just read this
http:////www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html

And it really IS a pretty weak argument. I can't believe a philosopher with so many credentials could use so many logical fallacies



[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:29 PM. Reason : . ]

8/18/2005 2:24:49 PM

I've said it before, you can't apply logic to God.

8/18/2005 2:25:37 PM

Locutus Zero Oh, how cute. Trying to save face. Well, I hope you at least learned something this go around. Maybe it will help you out when you're fucking up bridges or whatever engineering you're into.

PS* Maybe YOU should take ST. 101!!!!111111

8/18/2005 2:26:46 PM