28
   

Logical explanation: why a god must exist

 
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:14 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:
There are universally true statements, such as "no mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light", but that's not something that CAN'T to happen, it's something that DOESN'T happen.
if you think that a mass can accelerate faster than the speed of light but just doesn't, then you are positing something so statically unlikely as to be a virtual impossibility. Having said that, I suppose it's not absolutely impossible just virtually impossible.

I do find a bit funny though...


I'd love to see how you worked out the odds on that. I have a feeling you're going by intuition which is a famously bad way of deciding how reality is.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:15 pm
@Amperage,
Well, that does n´t totally answer it either does it ?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:17 pm
@Night Ripper,
Yeah I was expecting you punch it through with infinity´s...
0 Replies
 
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:18 pm
@Night Ripper,
I roughly calculated the odds by considering how much time has passed since the big bang until now and how many objects have accelerated and how many objects we ourselves have tried to accelerate to the speed of light and how many theoretical physicists have studied the subject and how many experiments have been performed over the centuries, and given all of that, there has never even been one case or instance, theoretical or otherwise, to suggest that such a thing can happen but just doesn't.

So if it is possible for it to happen, but just doesn't or just hasn't yet, it seems logical to me to conclude that it must be a damn near statistical impossibility...
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:19 pm
@Night Ripper,
I drive a Lexus, therefore I am intelligent.
jk.

Let me establish my credentials.
I am a college freshman studying Electrical Engineering. The highest math I have completed is College Algebra. My current GPA is just below a 3.0.
But does that matter? NO! Because if you're really tied up in WHO is saying what you will simply overlook the evidence they present, as I think is obvious here.

Look, Amperage hits the nail on the head, regardless of when he joined in on the conversation. You have to ignore a lot of evidence which you guys are doing quite successfully - to believe that the Law of Causality is not true.

Fil, why does a cause cause what it causes?.... umm because it's a cause. If it did not cause something we would not describe it as a cause.

Night, nobody has answered this yet, so I'll ask you.
Do you understand the implications inherent in saying the Law of Causality is invalid?

It means that science is not a valid way to know anything. It means that rational thought cannot be.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:22 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage wrote:

I roughly calculated the odds by considering how much time has passed since the big bang until now and how many objects have accelerated and how many objects we ourselves have tried to accelerate to the speed of light and how many theoretical physicists have studied the subject, and given all of that, there has never even been one case or instance, theoretical or otherwise, to suggest that such a thing can happen but just doesn't.


That's the gambler's fallacy. That's like saying that because you've been pulling a slot machine handle since the Big Bang that it owes you a jackpot. It doesn't owe you anything. It's random.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:24 pm
@Night Ripper,
Big Bang! Hey, let's get back to that for a second.

Again, if the Law of Causality is not Law, what caused the universe?
The fact you acknowledged the Big Bang makes me believe you believe it happened.
So WHY did it happen?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:26 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Big Bang! Hey, let's get back to that for a second.

Again, if the Law of Causality is not Law, what caused the universe?
The fact you acknowledged the Big Bang makes me believe you believe it happened.
So WHY did it happen?


God of course. Now why did God happen? Oh that's right, special pleading, God doesn't need a why. Yawn. I don't think you and I are going to get anywhere like this.
0 Replies
 
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:27 pm
@Night Ripper,
If I flip a fair coin 8 times and lands on heads all 8 time. statistically speaking, it becomes more and more unlikely that it will continue to land on heads again and again without ever landing on tails...do you disagree?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:31 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage wrote:

If I flip a fair coin 8 times and lands on heads all 8 time. statistically speaking, it becomes more and more unlikely that it will continue to land on heads...do you disagree?


Do you know how to calculate the probability of a fair coin toss? If you don't know, go look it up.

Then, calculate the odds for 20 heads and then 1 head vs. 20 heads and then 1 tail. What are the probabilities?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:32 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Quote:
Fil, why does a cause cause what it causes?.... umm because it's a cause. If it did not cause something we would not describe it as a cause.


That is circular reasoning...sophistry !
I actually don´t know if something did the cause but only that to a given A then B followed...and I guess I did n´t even have to argue with any alternatives either...Something follows something is not something causes something, we actually need a better understanding of Being and Time for that...
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:35 pm
@Night Ripper,
yes, if you look at any 1 flip it's 50/50. However, if you look at the statistics over time as I was trying to demonstrate, it can clearly be shown how unlikely it is to flip 20 heads in a row.

Similarly, if things can accelerate faster than the speed of light but just don't or haven't yet, given a view over time, it seems quite unlikely that we've essentially "landed on heads a near infinite number of times in a row", where heads would be things not accelerating faster than the speed of light....that was my only point
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:35 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Not the case one doubts Big-Bang, but the case one doubts it was the beginning from nothingness...present thinking in the Scientific community actually supports this idea go figure...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:37 pm
@Amperage,
Is there a limit on throws ?
If not, in the face of infinity, the answer although yes is irrelevant for the matter...
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:39 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage wrote:

yes, if you look at any 1 flip it's 50/50. However, if you look at the statistics over time as I was trying to demonstrate, it can clearly be shown how unlikely it is to flip 20 heads in a row.

Similarly, if things can accelerate faster than the speed of light but just don't or haven't yet, given a view over time, it seems quite unlikely....that was my only point


No, you're committing the gambler's fallacy!

*bangs head against wall*

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Quote:
We can see from the above that, if one flips a fair coin 21 times, then the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152. However, the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 1⁄2. This is an application of Bayes' theorem.

This can also be seen without knowing that 20 heads have occurred for certain (without applying of Bayes' theorem). Consider the following two probabilities, assuming a fair coin:

* probability of 20 heads, then 1 tail = 0.520 × 0.5 = 0.521
* probability of 20 heads, then 1 head = 0.520 × 0.5 = 0.521

The probability of getting 20 heads then 1 tail, and the probability of getting 20 heads then another head are both 1 in 2,097,152. Therefore, it is equally likely to flip 21 heads as it is to flip 20 heads and then 1 tail when flipping a fair coin 21 times. Furthermore, these two probabilities are equally as likely as any other 21-flip combinations that can be obtained (there are 2,097,152 total); all 21-flip combinations will have probabilities equal to 0.521, or 1 in 2,097,152. From these observations, there is no reason to assume at any point that a change of luck is warranted based on prior trials (flips), because every outcome observed will always have been equally as likely as the other outcomes that were not observed for that particular trial, given a fair coin. Therefore, just as Bayes' theorem shows, the result of each trial comes down to the base probability of the fair coin: 1⁄2.


So, to answer my own question...

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 head is 1 in 2,097,152.

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 tail is 1 in 2,097,152.

It doesn't matter how many heads you have observed because each coin flip is INDEPENDENT. You aren't owed anything from 20 heads or 2000 heads.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:43 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night, you miss the point. The question isn't looking forward and asking about the next 'flip of the coin', but looking back at how things HAVE played out in the PAST. Therefore, compiling the odds is the appropriate method to use.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:43 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

So, to answer my own question...

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 head is 1 in 2,097,152.

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 tail is 1 in 2,097,152.
yes, those are great odds...not.
And we aren't just talking about having flipped 20 times...we are talking about a near infinite number of times.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:44 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

So, to answer my own question...

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 head is 1 in 2,097,152.

The odds of 20 heads and then 1 tail is 1 in 2,097,152.
yes, those are great odds...not.
And we aren't just talking about having flipped 20 times...we are talking about a near infinite number of times.


It doesn't matter how many times. I've shown that you are wrong. Now you're just being stubborn. So, I'm going to go do something constructive. Let me know when you realize your fallacy.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:44 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Yeah...still he has a point there...
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 02:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
no, it's not circular... your question was circular. I gave you, in a form, the definition of a cause. A cause is something that brings about an effect. A cause causes something.
If it did not cause something, it would not be a cause... is that hard to understand?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 01:08:37