(The story in question appeared in Netscape.com's "What's New" today. Find it
here.You've run this story a number of times now; today's appearance on "What's New" is only the latest.
The problem is, the story is fundamentally flawed. The mathematics are all wrong!
If the odds of God existing are 1 in 2, then there is automatically at least a 50% chance that God does NOT exist, and without God existing, the rest of the arguments cannot be true automatically.
Next, if the odds of God becoming incarnate are also 1 in 2, then the odds of God existing AND becoming incarnate are only 25%. There is a 50% chance of God existing, and 50% of 50% that he became incarnate. The preacher you wrote about assumed that the odds at that point were 75%, which is a gross misunderstanding of probability.
If we now accept the next argument, that the likelihood of the resurrection not being reported by the Gospels is 10% (although I have no idea where he came up with that number), then the odds become 22.5% (90% of 25%, since if God does not exist, or exists and did not incarnate, then there is no likelihood of the Gospels being accurate.)
In short, Professor Swinburne has actually posited an argument AGAINST the resurrection of Christ, giving it (at best) odds of 4 to 1 against. Someone in Vegas might take those odds, but I won't.
The great thing about Faith is that it defies all proof. We do not need numbers in our favor to believe that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days later. Putting forward articles like this one which are rife with bad math and bad science only bolsters the arguments of those who do not believe in God and Christ. Please research your story selection a little better.
Yours,
Paul L. Sungenis,
Vineland NJ.