The logic goes like this:“There’s even been studies that have been done. April 2002, University of Oxford, Professor of Philosophy Richard Swineburn, actually launched into a study trying to determine the probability of the resurrection of Christ. [...] He used the Bayes theory of probability. Anyone ever heard of that? He used the Bayes theory, I assume it’s something significant, and he teaches at Yale University! And it’s picked up by the New York Times, and it’s published there. And he is out to prove or disprove the probability of the resurrection.”
“And he goes on to say this. This is one of the statements that he makes: “For someone dead for 36 hours to come back to life again is extremely improbable.” And I would agree with that. I haven’t seen it done yet. “But if there is a God of the traditional kind, natural laws only operate because he makes them.” Makes sense! If God was to overcome the natural laws, then he could overcome the natural laws. Because he made them!”
- The probably of God’s existence is one in two (since God either exists or doesn’t exist).
- The probability that God became incarnate is also one in two (since it either happened or it didn’t).
- 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.
http://donaldmorton.wordpress.com/2011/ ... urrection/
