lefty louie
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2017
- Messages
- 2,435
- Reaction score
- 357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I was referring man made laws, not natural laws.
No, they aren't. We explain them with words (and math) but they exist independent of our words.
You don't need a word for gravity to fall off a cliff.
I was referring man made laws, not natural laws.
Well I don't like playing god, I'm simply far too limited for the position. But perhaps a just god would have given us a "human condition" where when we do something immoral, we would shed our skin or lose our hair. But why does man have to have free will? If god created us he didn't have to give us free will, that's a man made excuse, that god gave it to us.
Well I don't like playing god, I'm simply far too limited for the position. But perhaps a just god would have given us a "human condition" where when we do something immoral, we would shed our skin or lose our hair. But why does man have to have free will? If god created us he didn't have to give us free will, that's a man made excuse, that god gave it to us.
For the saved, we will live eternally in heaven, where the Bible says there are no more sorrows and no more tears. And that's a very good deal.
That sophomoric satire has misled many an otherwise bright fellow.God can be a flying spaghetti monster.....so he must be.
No, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible," and that just means "possible."No he isn't, if the possibility/impossibility is unknown you cannot claim it is possible at best you can say it could be possible
No because saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible, saying something is possible is stating that it cannot be impossible.
Your point is incorrect
My response is grammatically and logically the ONLY correct way of making the statement.
My point is that not knowing if something is impossible doesn't mean that it is possible.
Not at all impossible is the antonym of possible, not the negation. Something can either be possible or impossible. The lack of knowledge about its possibility cannot make the impossible possible. That is an illogical and absurd statement.
Look at it this way.
If you dont know if something is east you cannot say it is west you can only say that it could be west.
Fair enough.Yes. I believe there is a god, but I do not believe he is all mighty or all powerful, as described in the Bible.
Are you acquainted with Maugham's 1944 novel? Perhaps you know the motion picture of 1946 based on the novel?...
I just have a really hard time seeing what was to be gain by placing people on a planet and watching such natural disasters as hurricanes and earthquakes kill millions. And those deaths were not someone passing away quietly at home with family , no many struggled, suffered extreme pain, and gasped that last breath of air.
Yes I already stated thatNo, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible,"
No it doesntand that just means "possible."
Possible/impossible are antonymsNo, the word impossible is formed by negating the word possible: in+possible = impossible.
No, east is not the negation of west. And "east-west" is not analogous to "possible-impossible."
Impossible:A1 able to be done or achieved, or able to exist:
I can't get it all done by Friday - it's just not possible.
Is it possible to buy tickets in advance?
They got as far as was humanly possible (= as far as anyone could have) before turning back.
Opposite
impossible
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/something that cannot be expected to happen or exist:
She wants a man who is attractive and funny as well, which is asking the impossible in my opinion.
No it isntNo, your assertion that "saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible" is incorrect and false.
I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.If you insist on denying or rejecting the basic meanings of words in order to defend the untenable position you've adopted here, then we have nothing more to discuss, Quag.
Peace, brother.
Growing up I was taught that and must admit it was reassuring. But as I became an adult I realized this promise was similar to being good for Santa Claus.
I just have a really hard time seeing what was to be gain by placing people on a planet and watching such natural disasters as hurricanes and earthquakes kill millions. And those deaths were not someone passing away quietly at home with family , no many struggled, suffered extreme pain, and gasped that last breath of air.
Prove Santa falseWell, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Can you tell me some important person or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false, as in Santa Claus?
There's going to be natural disasters and people are going to gasp that last breath of air whether there's a God or not. But at least with God those things are temporary. Heaven rocks, and it's a shame unbelievers are going to miss it.
I am sure this can be explained away by either side, but I need to say it anyway because I have been in similar situations.
I was watching I Survived today, and a black man who's boat sank was swimming to an island but just about completely exhausted and could not go one more inch.
He asked God to please help him in any way to get to that shore, and a wave came and pushed him a bit toward the island.
This happened three more times until he was actually able to feel sand under his feet.
FAITH is something you have or you don't.
if he had only relied on himself, he would have drowned.
He instead called out and used his FAITH in something greater than himself for help.
Sometimes this is all it takes.
That sophomoric satire has misled many an otherwise bright fellow.
No, I'm afraid "could be possible" just means "possibly possible," and that just means "possible."
No, the word impossible is formed by negating the word possible: in+possible = impossible.
No, east is not the negation of west. And "east-west" is not analogous to "possible-impossible."
No, your assertion that "saying something could be possible allows for it to be impossible" is incorrect and false.
If you insist on denying or rejecting the basic meanings of words in order to defend the untenable position you've adopted here, then we have nothing more to discuss, Quag.
Peace, brother.
Yes I already stated that
No it doesnt
Possible/impossible are antonyms
Possible:
Impossible:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
No it isnt
I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.
Well, we have the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Can you tell me some important person or event in the Gospels that's been shown to be false, as in Santa Claus?
There's going to be natural disasters and people are going to gasp that last breath of air whether there's a God or not. But at least with God those things are temporary. Heaven rocks, and it's a shame unbelievers are going to miss it.
As much as I disagree with Quag when it comes to religious views, he's spot on about this "usage of logic" debate though... "could be possible" and "possible" are two different things... the first quote is for when you haven't yet established that something is possible, you haven't seen it happen yet, so from a purely logical standpoint, you don't truly know either way... it could be possible, but it could also be impossible, you just don't know because you haven't seen it happen... the second quote is for when you have now seen it happen at least one time, so you can now logically establish that something is definitely not impossible because it in fact did happen at least once...
Maybe I didn't describe it in a very good way, but that's my attempt at making it clearer... Quag can correct me if I'm agreeing with him in an illogical way
If only one of the 9 people killed in that church in Charleston 2 years ago had faith then maybe God would have caused the killer's gun to misfire.
If someone survives a tragedy then it is God's work. If someone doesn't survive a tragedy does that same God ever get the blame?
If you want to believe in that I guess that is fine. At one time people believed the earth was flat and that was resolved.
The only point I disagree with is the need to have seen it happen at least once, cant think of an example ATM but something can be proven possible but not actually happen.
Why are you trying to compare surviving/not surviving a tragedy to the erroneous belief that the world was flat? Science was able finally to demonstrate that this isn’t so and, centuries later, we now have photographic evidence from space. What are you expecting science to demonstrate here?
No, "could be" indicates possibility. And this is what logic says:As much as I disagree with Quag when it comes to religious views, he's spot on about this "usage of logic" debate though... "could be possible" and "possible" are two different things... the first quote is for when you haven't yet established that something is possible, you haven't seen it happen yet, so from a purely logical standpoint, you don't truly know either way... it could be possible, but it could also be impossible, you just don't know because you haven't seen it happen... the second quote is for when you have now seen it happen at least one time, so you can now logically establish that something is definitely not impossible because it in fact did happen at least once...
Maybe I didn't describe it in a very good way, but that's my attempt at making it clearer... Quag can correct me if I'm agreeing with him in an illogical way
In fairness to Angel, we ended up having to resort to 'possibly possible' with Frank because he would not accept the logical caveat in the definition of 'possible'. That said, you are absolutely correct in the case of this assertion to dig your heels in until the not impossible/possible apologetic is cleared up.Yes I already stated that
No it doesnt
Possible/impossible are antonyms
Possible:
Impossible:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
No it isnt
I am the one actually providing the definition of words with links to dictionaries so I dont see how you can claim I am rejecting the basic meanings of words or have an untenable position.
It applies to anything that inhabits the realm of our ignorance. It is actually an appeal to ignorance so pick your concept on that basis and you will have one.Interesting point you bring up... And I can't think of an example offhand either, but would be interested in somebody coming up with one...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?