Fundie: Math Proves the Resurrection

[Rye]

Swinburne is a complete tool. I recall from my Philosophy days that he actually said, with all seriousness, that it proves God is merciful since he allows famine victims to die, and people pass out from pain, because he does not prolong their agony beyond that.

Let's try a little change here:

1. The probably of God's existence is one in infinity. That is, God either exists or doesn't, from infinite potential mutually exclusive gods, and infinite potential universes where gods don't exist at all.

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

3. The evidence for God's existence is not an argument for the resurrection, since there is no such evidence. This is also why every theistic argument going has to rationalise why God does not appear to exist.

4. The chance of Christ's resurrection not being reported by the gospels is rather irrelevent, since they were obviously mythology, and not an actual historical account.

5. Considering all these factors together, there is a one in infinity chance that the resurrection is true, while honest Bible scholars, such as those at the Jesus Seminar admit it to be mythological rather than factual.

[NPComplete]

This is up there with Dr. William Hatcher's proof of the existence of 'G' the cause of everything which exists.

Except that Hatcher argues that 'G' must not be in the collection of things 'V' (V is all entities, presumably supposed to be everything that exists), because no composite entity can be caused by a subpart of itself.

The end conclusion there seems totally flawed to me, because if 'G' is outside the set of all things which exist, then what you've got is a proof of the non-existence of God.

Babel fish anyone?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

This man took his inspiration from the Tom Hanks(I believe) movie, 'The Terminal', I would think. Complete with a pattern of only broken enlish and probably subsisting on crackers with ketchup and mustard.

Also, there's a 100% chance that I am God, because I know that there's a 0% chance that my cat is God. I win.

[Glimmervoid]

This man took his inspiration from the Tom Hanks(I believe) movie, 'The Terminal', I would think. Complete with a pattern of only broken enlish and probably subsisting on crackers with ketchup and mustard.

Also, there's a 100% chance that I am God, because I know that there's a 0% chance that my cat is God. I win.

But if your cat is God he/she would be able to make you think that.

Also some one needs to send an email to that guy explaining statistics too him. I will send a copy over to my friend whose dad is a professor of statistics and see if he can have his dad send some thing.

[sketerpot]

1. If I flip a coin, the probability of it landing on heads is 1/2.
2. If I flip another coin, the probability of it landing on heads is 1/2.
3. If I flip another coin, the probability of it landing on heads is 1/2.
4. If I flip another coin, the probability of it landing on heads is 1/2.

Therefore if I flip four coins, the probability of getting four heads is 93.75%.

Fortunately I'm not a dumbass arrogant enough to pull figures out of his ass, apply incorrect math to them, and trumpet his results to all the world, and therefore I know that 93.75% is actually the probability of not getting four heads.

[wautd]

- why does this guy hit the news with bullshit like that?
- why isnt he fired yet? I tought Oxford had some prestige no?

[Wicked Pilot]

Is this some kind of joke?

[Hawkwings]

I'll either win the jackpot in the lottery, or I wont. so, 1 in 2 chance, right?

Oh wait, what's that "1 in 98436598643232539647943765436 chance of winning" crap in small print?

[Dakarne]

Okay... math is completely unrelated to religion and faith, thus there is a 60.9% chance that that line of thinking was pulled out of his arse. The other 39.1% is that he bumped his head on something and is suffering from a Concussion.

[Surlethe]

The idiot is picking and choosing his probabilities. To tautologize "Either God exists or he doesn't" is correct; to derive from that tautology "Therefore, the probability God exists is 50%" is incorrect.

This is because every entity either exists or does not exist. However, the probability of existence is not related in any way to the fact it either exists or does not.

Example: Quantum mechanically, you could fall through the floor in a minute. The probability of you falling through the floor is incredibly small, and won't happen during the lifetime of the universe. However, by this professor's "logic", because you will either fall through the floor or will not, the probability of you falling through the floor in a minute is 50%. Bullshit.

[DrkHelmet]

However, by this professor's "logic", because you will either fall through the floor or will not, the probability of you falling through the floor in a minute is 50%.

We've all been getting extremely lucky then. Seriously though, when I read this the first time, I had no clue what was said. I had to read it a second time before I finally discerned the sheer stupidity of this argument.

[Dakarne]

The idiot is picking and choosing his probabilities. To tautologize "Either God exists or he doesn't" is correct; to derive from that tautology "Therefore, the probability God exists is 50%" is incorrect.

I think I've run into this BS in the past when I was younger, or something similar to it, I went to a Church of England Primary School... I may have heard that line of bullshit there.

Example: Quantum mechanically, you could fall through the floor in a minute. The probability of you falling through the floor is incredibly small, and won't happen during the lifetime of the universe. However, by this professor's "logic", because you will either fall through the floor or will not, the probability of you falling through the floor in a minute is 50%. Bullshit.

(falls through the floor)

Damn fundie logic...

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Philosophers should be barred from using math or science in their lectures unless they have someone qualified in that area standing next to them, ready to swing a bag full of coins into the proffesors head if he/she says something stupid. If I was a member Oxford University's Administration I'd revoke his tenure after reading this bullshit.

[wolveraptor]

So basically, the fuckwit goes around and acts like Christianity is the only religion ever. Talk about sheltered. What a fucking moron. How does a professor of religion say shit like this?

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

As I recall, phillosophers of RELIGION are not the same as idiotic fundie preachers.

[Kuroneko]

Well, my esteem of Oxford has reached an all-time low. Still, I suppose this is just one more confirmation that most of British philosophy is simply rubbish, barring a few jems like Jonathan Barnes. Frankly, it's faulty from the beginning, as embodied in the common condemantion of the American "thesis, background, argument, objections and replies" prescriptive structure for being "too studentlike", as if making it clear from the beginning what one is talking about and the arguments for and against is a bad thing. Lack of emphasis on logical structure from the beginning only encourages sloppy thinking and nonsense like the above.

[Duckie]

So basically, the fuckwit goes around and acts like Christianity is the only religion ever. Talk about sheltered. What a fucking moron.

Are you kidding? This level of ignorance is rather dull compared to some spectacular examples I've seen.

I have known people who didn't realize there was more than Judaism and Christianity* before 9/11. Hell, I've known people who thought that America is the only Democracy in the world [unsuprising, considering how we act like we invented and patented it, but that's another thread's topic.]. Or people who have to get help with which side won the US Civil War.

*Technically they mentioned "Science" as the third religion, but I blacked that part out of my memory.

I coudl make some sort of snappy probability joke involving the "2 choices, therefore each is 50% likely" idiocy, but everyone already covered that.

[General Zod]

The thing I want to know is, what's the probability that this guy sucks cock really good, since that's the only conceivable way I can fathom this asstard getting an interview with CNN? Going by his logic, either he sucks great cock, or he doesn't. Thus, there's at least a 50% chance that he sucks great cock.

[Superman]

Why do fundies think they can prove all their supernatural bullshit with math? Once I was talking to Captain Chewbacca (I'm not saying he's a fundie, mind you), and he mentioned he could "show me" how God works through math.

Why can't fundies just accept their religion is ALL based in faith?

[Superman]

By the way, ever hear the common fundie argument that "evolution has been disproven via math?" I have. Fundies must think that mathematics is their biggest theological ally.

[Duckie]

They don't understand what Math really is, but they assume it's some sort of magical probability detecting device that determines the state of the universe. Though on a non-quantum scale, it rather is, but that's besides the point because Heisenberg will pimpslap you if you try it.

I think it comes from a gross misunderstanding of probability mathematics.

[Chmee]

So, Salma Hayek either is or is not in my bed ... she is either fully clothed or naked ... she is either smothered in whipped cream and chocolate sauce or not ...

*checks bed*

*shakes fist at sky*

"THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!"

[wilfulton]

a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]


Yet another example of what you can prove with mathematics. There is, naturally, a fallacy here, see if you can't find it.

[Surlethe]

a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]


Yet another example of what you can prove with mathematics. There is, naturally, a fallacy here, see if you can't find it.

Got it (size decreased in case people don't want to see the answer):

a - x = 0; step 6 divides by 0

[Duckie]

2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]

It must be right here, since it starts, simplified, as
[If A=X, then A-X=0.]
2(0) = 2X-2X= 0
2(0) = 0

Perhaps, you cannot divide a parenthetical expression without using the distributive property first? It seems logical, because it would produce
2a-2x= a-x
and you cannot get 2=1 from that.

[SCRawl]

a = x [true for some a's and x's]
a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]


Yet another example of what you can prove with mathematics. There is, naturally, a fallacy here, see if you can't find it.

Yeah, that's an old one, but I won't give it away.

Bottom line, if this guy (the one from the OP, in case there's any misunderstanding) actually believes that his logic is sound, then he's an idiot. Not misunderstood, or being a wishful thinker, we're talking full-blown dribbling-from-the-mouth moron. This is just so far from the realm of logic and mathematics that the only way they should be used in the same sentence is "this is an example of a statement which has no resemblance to logic or mathematics".