Logical explanation: why a god must exist

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.