Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

[Frank Apisa]

Thanks, this made me think instead of just making me shake my head in the disbelief that one could continue to make the same claim, with the same words, over and over and over and over without offering up some other, ANY other, type of explanation.

Using definition 2 from your post almost makes Frank's position tenable for me.

But using it in the way that you did, with the car and driveway example, doesn't quite work for my brain, because I know that both cars and driveways exist. Would it still be possible for there to be an alien spacecraft in your driveway?

Honest debate ... not trying to "gotcha" or anything. This is the direction I was hoping the troll - er, Frank - would have taken the debate.

Stop with the nonsense, Critter.

I have offered clarification, explanation, and definition of what I mean by "possible." And for the most part, my take is exactly the same as what Mach just offered and is so pleased about.

You guys are all so anxious to "show me to be wrong" you don't even listen.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Two choices: is possible, is not possible. Correct.

All we need to know is about one star system (of those 10) If we know that none of those stars have planets within what we call the inclusion zone. then we are not going to say possible or impossible, we are going to say not probable.

Frank is trying to make it where there are only two choices: a black and white way of thinking. He hasnt thought of things like perhaps there was life on one of those planets, but it is dead now. In that case it was not impossible there was life on those planets. It also doesnt mean that life is possible now. Or that there is life as we know it. There could be something that is not really alive by our standards, but then it isnt really dead by our standards. The proper answer to asking if life is possible in any of those star systems is that we do not know at this point. But we could at some point find out.

The problem is that when we talk about gods some people believe that us mortals can never know anything about immortals. They moved the goal posts to a position that they feel protects their gods. And doing so they believe that their gods are possible.

 

[Mach]

Thanks, this made me think instead of just making me shake my head in the disbelief that one could continue to make the same claim, with the same words, over and over and over and over without offering up some other, ANY other, type of explanation.

I know, just writing the above made me think about it too, I have no clear idea where the two definitions will collide and I'm interested to see if/how they do.

Using definition 2 from your post almost makes Frank's position tenable for me.

I agree. I can't figure out why if it was so easy to copy/paste the first google definition, that it hadn't been offered up yet. I think there will be a resolution to this that will show something true in both definitions, that's different, and useful...but that's a guess.

But using it in the way that you did, with the car and driveway example, doesn't quite work for my brain, because I know that both cars and driveways exist. Would it still be possible for there to be an alien spacecraft in your driveway?

Yes, that's exactly why I think it's good to have removed "god" and "aliens" from the argument, to first see what "possible" is doing to the arguments.

As "straightforward" as this seems, it apparently gets a little complicated, especially when you have both terms "god/aliens" and "possible". I don't like that long post for such a seemingly simple concept...alas.

 

[Frank Apisa]

All we need to know is about one star system (of those 10) If we know that none of those stars have planets within what we call the inclusion zone. then we are not going to say possible or impossible, we are going to say not probable.

Frank is trying to make it where there are only two choices: a black and white way of thinking. He hasnt thought of things like perhaps there was life on one of those planets, but it is dead now. In that case it was not impossible there was life on those planets. It also doesnt mean that life is possible now. Or that there is life as we know it. There could be something that is not really alive by our standards, but then it isnt really dead by our standards. The proper answer to asking if life is possible in any of those star systems is that we do not know at this point. But we could at some point find out.

The problem is that when we talk about gods some people believe that us mortals can never know anything about immortals. They moved the goal posts to a position that they feel protects their gods. And doing so they believe that their gods are possible.

Talk about dissembling!!!

What I am saying is that it is POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...and it is also POSSIBLE there is NO sentient life on any of those planets.

If there are planets or what zone they are in...does not enter into what was asserted.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Stop with the nonsense, Critter.

I have offered clarification, explanation, and definition of what I mean by "possible." And for the most part, my take is exactly the same as what Mach just offered and is so pleased about.

You guys are all so anxious to "show me to be wrong" you don't even listen.

Frank things are not actually black and white in the real world. You have completely excluded the middle ground. You have created a False dilemma. You are asserting that either something is possible or it is impossible. You refuse to accept that there could be other probabilities. You said that unless a thing is established impossible, you assume that the thing is still possible then. You jumped to a conclusion with zero information assuming that it has to be one or the other. Further information may prove that the thing is neither possible or impossible, that the thing is something entirely different than what you assumed it was.

To know if something is possible or impossible you have to know a great deal about the thing that you are talking about. If you know nothing about the thing it isnt valid to ask if that thing is possible or impossible, since you would just be guessing. You are just pretending that no one would notice the assumptions that you have been making all along. Asking if gods are possible or impossible isnt a valid question. Not when you have no clue wtf you are talking about.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Talk about dissembling!!!

What I am saying is that it is POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...and it is also POSSIBLE there is NO sentient life on any of those planets.

If there are planets or what zone they are in...does not enter into what was asserted.

You dont know if life is possible or impossible in those star systems. Right?

 

[calamity]

Thanks, this made me think instead of just making me shake my head in the disbelief that one could continue to make the same claim, with the same words, over and over and over and over without offering up some other, ANY other, type of explanation.

Using definition 2 from your post almost makes Frank's position tenable for me.

But using it in the way that you did, with the car and driveway example, doesn't quite work for my brain, because I know that both cars and driveways exist. Would it still be possible for there to be an alien spacecraft in your driveway?

Honest debate ... not trying to "gotcha" or anything. This is the direction I was hoping the troll - er, Frank - would have taken the debate.

Yep. I still see it as Frank needs to be a little more flexible in his use of possible when discussing a complete unknown. Saying something is possible infers some knowledge.

"It is possible that space aliens fly airplanes," is perhaps, on its surface, a reasonable statement in conversation. But, it infers too much: A.) That there are space aliens. B.) That they have airplanes. C.) That they have an atmosphere conducive to lift. All three conditions must be met before we can say it is possible that they fly them. If any one of them is not met, aliens flying planes is impossible.

Hence, IMO, there is no way we can assert that it is possible that space aliens fly airplanes.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Some of these have multiple stars, but they’re part of the same system.

Alpha Centauri – 4.2
Barnard’s Star – 5.9
Wolf 359 – 7.8
Lalande 21185 – 8.3
Sirius – 8.6
Luyten 726-8 – 8.7
Ross 154 – 9.7
Ross 248 – 10.3
Epsilon Eridani – 10.5
Lacaille 9352 – 10.7

Since you are talking about only 10 Star systems the probability of life in those systems is pretty low. Is life possible in any of those systems? Your guess is as good as mine. I cant really jump to the conclusion or assume that it is possible, impossible or something else, I just do not know at this point. I would like to believe that life is possible in those systems because that would be awesome. But I will wait and see what we find out.

But those systems are well within the possibility of us finding out if there is life there or not. The question of life there is valid, though not answerable right now. The question of gods though isnt valid, since all we have is BS that people made up out of thin air. While the question of gods isnt valid we can come to the conclusion that the concepts of gods is a bunch of BS that humans made up. You can pretend that gods are possible using grade school logic all that you want but that wont make the possibility of gods a reality.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank things are not actually black and white in the real world. You have completely excluded the middle ground. You have created a False dilemma. You are asserting that either something is possible or it is impossible. You refuse to accept that there could be other probabilities. You said that unless a thing is established impossible, you assume that the thing is still possible then. You jumped to a conclusion with zero information assuming that it has to be one or the other. Further information may prove that the thing is neither possible or impossible, that the thing is something entirely different than what you assumed it was.

To know if something is possible or impossible you have to know a great deal about the thing that you are talking about. If you know nothing about the thing it isnt valid to ask if that thing is possible or impossible, since you would just be guessing. You are just pretending that no one would notice the assumptions that you have been making all along. Asking if gods are possible or impossible isnt a valid question. Not when you have no clue wtf you are talking about.

At no point have I ever suggested that everything has to be black and white.

I selected an either or, proposition...either a thing is possible...or it is impossiblel.

Unless it is established to be impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

There is no logical alternative.

If you want to think asking the questions "Is it possible there are gods" or "Is it possible there are no gods" is "not valid"...think it. I suggest that thinking they are not valid is an absurdity...since they are questions that the wisest people who have ever lived have pondered.

Okay?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You dont know if life is possible or impossible in those star systems. Right?

I do not know if sentient life exists there.

I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS SENTIENT LIFE THERE...

...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THERE IS NO LIFE THERE.

 

[William Rea]

It is my contention that unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

Quag and I are arguing this out in another thread...and it is becoming disruptive. It has no place there.

I've started this thread to continue the conversation.

Everyone is invited.

The OP.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Some of these have multiple stars, but they’re part of the same system.

Alpha Centauri – 4.2
Barnard’s Star – 5.9
Wolf 359 – 7.8
Lalande 21185 – 8.3
Sirius – 8.6
Luyten 726-8 – 8.7
Ross 154 – 9.7
Ross 248 – 10.3
Epsilon Eridani – 10.5
Lacaille 9352 – 10.7

Since you are talking about only 10 Star systems the probability of life in those systems is pretty low. Is life possible in any of those systems? Your guess is as good as mine. I cant really jump to the conclusion or assume that it is possible, impossible or something else, I just do not know at this point. I would like to believe that life is possible in those systems because that would be awesome. But I will wait and see what we find out.

But those systems are well within the possibility of us finding out if there is life there or not. The question of life there is valid, though not answerable right now. The question of gods though isnt valid, since all we have is BS that people made up out of thin air. While the question of gods isnt valid we can come to the conclusion that the concepts of gods is a bunch of BS that humans made up. You can pretend that gods are possible using grade school logic all that you want but that wont make the possibility of gods a reality.

It is POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 1000 stars to Sol...

...and it is also POSSIBLE there is no sentient life on any of those planets.


It is POSSIBLE that there are gods (that at least one god exists)...and it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods (that no gods exist.)

Sorry you are having such trouble with that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The OP.

And???

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yep. I still see it as Frank needs to be a little more flexible in his use of possible when discussing a complete unknown. Saying something is possible infers some knowledge.

"It is possible that space aliens fly airplanes," is perhaps, on its surface, a reasonable statement in conversation. But, it infers too much: A.) That there are space aliens. B.) That they have airplanes. C.) That they have an atmosphere conducive to lift. All three conditions must be met before we can say it is possible that they fly them. If any one of them is not met, aliens flying planes is impossible.

Hence, IMO, there is no way we can assert that it is possible that space aliens fly airplanes.

You could say that it is possible if certain conditions are met. The probability of those conditions could be listed, if one researched the probability of those conditions on known exoplanets. The plane as a object could be possible, the conditions needed for the plane to fly are definitely possible, and aliens to fly them is possible given our knowledge of evolution.

Another planet with the conditions close to what our planet has, is possible. But that is looking at the probabilities that the entire universe of countless star systems gives. Franks 10 Star systems narrow the probability of life down drastically. One could assume life is possible in those systems or that life is impossible in those systems as a guess. It has no bearing on if that is a valid question or not unless we learn more about those star systems. We only need one exoplanet in those star systems that have a possibility of life existing for it to be possible. But then we are talking about life as we know it.

But if we then move it to the entire universe, life is possible given that life on Earth is proven to exist. Of course then we could be the first life in the universe. Until we find life somewhere else then we wont actually know if life exists somewhere else. But we would be safe to say now that it is possible and not impossible that life could exist somewhere other than Earth. That doesnt mean that it does.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It is POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 1000 stars to Sol...

...and it is also POSSIBLE there is no sentient life on any of those planets.


It is POSSIBLE that there are gods (that at least one god exists)...and it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods (that no gods exist.)

Sorry you are having such trouble with that.

The problem is that we can define life. So we can assume it a possibility if certain conditions are met. It doesnt mean that life exists in those conditions just that it is possible given our knowledge of those conditions needed for life.

In contrast gods are just BS that humans made up with no actual conditions to work from. It would be silly to make any assumptions about gods existing in reality. It just isnt a valid coherent concept. You can go on pretending that gods are a valid question but it would be just your subjective opinion.

 

[Critter7r]

Stop with the nonsense, Critter.

I have offered clarification, explanation, and definition of what I mean by "possible." And for the most part, my take is exactly the same as what Mach just offered and is so pleased about.

You guys are all so anxious to "show me to be wrong" you don't even listen.

At no time did you offer up a different method of explaining your point except to bring in other equally easily dismissible comparisons like a triangle with more than 3 sides - which is silly since we invented the definition of a triangle to describe something that exists, but we have not determined if alien life (or gods) exist, so it isn't comparable.

I do not know if sentient life exists there.

I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS SENTIENT LIFE THERE...

...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THERE IS NO LIFE THERE.

If your definition of possible is "may be true", then I agree with both statements.

If your definition of possible is "able to be true", then I agree only with the 2nd statement.

 

[Mach]

. You said that unless a thing is established impossible, you assume that the thing is still possible then. You jumped to a conclusion with zero information assuming that it has to be one or the other. Further information may prove that the thing is neither possible or impossible, that the thing is something entirely different than what you assumed it was.

This definition:
Possible | Define Possible at Dictionary.com
2.that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary:
Notice the "no knowledge to the contrary"

What I'm curious about is what KIND of a claim is this:
(assuming I have a house and birds can land there, etc....no alien life or gods please!)
1. It's possible there is a bird on my house AND it is possible there is no bird on my house

Is THIS a knowledge claim? What exactly does it inform us about reality, does it tell us about a bird existing on the house? I don't think it does.
It also doesn't tell us about a bird NOT existing on the house. It seems to tell us nothing. At least nothing that the definitions of house, bird, and "on" would inform us of.

The definitions are what we're relying on as the knowledge claim it appears.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I do not know if sentient life exists there.

I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS SENTIENT LIFE THERE...

...AND I MOST ASSUREDLY KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE THERE IS NO LIFE THERE.

It comes back to the English language problem that you are having.

1. You dont know if sentient life exists in those locations.

2. You dont know if it is possible that sentient life could exist in those locations.

So really you dont know if it is "possible that there is sentient life there."
And you dont know if it is possible that "there is no life there."

You just dont know. Wording the way you have is a attempt to make it look like you know something but you really dont know. It is a trick of words on your part and everyone can plainly see right through it.

At any rate the two statements cancel each other out. You are stating that it possible its a positive then you state that its possible that it is a negative. Net result is that you offered nothing except that you dont know one way or another, and that you wont come to a conclusion. In simple words you said "I dont know".







"

 

[William Rea]

It comes back to the English language problem that you are having.

1. You dont know if sentient life exists in those locations.

2. You dont know if it is possible that sentient life could exist in those locations.

So really you dont know if it is "possible that there is sentient life there."
And you dont know if it is possible that "there is no life there."

You just dont know. Wording the way you have is a attempt to make it look like you know something but you really dont know. It is a trick of words on your part and everyone can plainly see right through it.

At any rate the two statements cancel each other out. You are stating that it possible its a positive then you state that its possible that it is a negative. Net result is that you offered nothing except that you dont know one way or another, and that you wont come to a conclusion. In simple words you said "I dont know".

"

I don't understand what the ellipses are for in the assertion in this thread and why this has arisen in this thread when we have this other thread and OP...

…it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods.

Quag disagrees.

Rather than clog up the thread where we were discussing it, I am opening this new thread devoted specifically to that topic.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist...it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods.

Seems to me that the subject is being changed.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This definition:
Possible | Define Possible at Dictionary.com
2.that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary:
Notice the "no knowledge to the contrary"

What I'm curious about is what KIND of a claim is this:
(assuming I have a house and birds can land there, etc....no alien life or gods please!)
1. It's possible there is a bird on my house AND it is possible there is no bird on my house

Is THIS a knowledge claim? What exactly does it inform us about reality, does it tell us about a bird existing on the house? I don't think it does.
It also doesn't tell us about a bird NOT existing on the house. It seems to tell us nothing. At least nothing that the definitions of house, bird, and "on" would inform us of.

The definitions are what we're relying on as the knowledge claim it appears.

Given that it is physically possible that a bird could be on your house, but you didnt go look then it is anyone's guess if there is actually one there now. The concept of possibilities isnt even needed for that. You have already established that a bird could be there. So question is if there is one there now. The answer should be that you dont know without actually confirming it.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The problem is that we can define life. So we can assume it a possibility if certain conditions are met. It doesnt mean that life exists in those conditions just that it is possible given our knowledge of those conditions needed for life.

In contrast gods are just BS that humans made up with no actual conditions to work from. It would be silly to make any assumptions about gods existing in reality. It just isnt a valid coherent concept. You can go on pretending that gods are a valid question but it would be just your subjective opinion.

If you want to suppose that questions about whether gods exist or not are not valid questions...even though they are questions contemplated by the most brilliant minds the planet has ever seem...

...feel free to do so.

I consider it to be absurd, but you are free to do so.

 

[William Rea]

If you want to suppose that questions about whether gods exist or not are not valid questions...even though they are questions contemplated by the most brilliant minds the planet has ever seem...

...feel free to do so.

I consider it to be absurd, but you are free to do so.

Which 'gods' are we talking about now Frank? Is it your definition of 'gods'?

 

[Frank Apisa]

At no time did you offer up a different method of explaining your point except to bring in other equally easily dismissible comparisons like a triangle with more than 3 sides - which is silly since we invented the definition of a triangle to describe something that exists, but we have not determined if alien life (or gods) exist, so it isn't comparable.

Here is what I said:

I have offered clarification, explanation, and definition of what I mean by "possible." And for the most part, my take is exactly the same as what Mach just offered and is so pleased about.

Are you saying I haven't?

If your definition of possible is "may be true", then I agree with both statements.

When I use the word "possible" I mean "it MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE OR ACTUAL."

Everything I have ever said on this issue has conformed to that.

If your definition of possible is "able to be true", then I agree only with the 2nd statement.

I don't even know what you mean there.

I am saying that it is POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars (or 1000 stars if you prefer) to Sol...and it is also POSSIBLE that there is no sentient life on any of those planets.

And that comment...is logical, reasonable, and consistent.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It comes back to the English language problem that you are having.

1. You dont know if sentient life exists in those locations.

Correct. I do not know.

2. You dont know if it is possible that sentient life could exist in those locations.

Nonsense. Of course I know it is POSSIBLE that sentient life could exist there. And until such time as someone establishes that it is not POSSIBLE...IT IS POSSIBLE.

So really you dont know if it is "possible that there is sentient life there."
And you dont know if it is possible that "there is no life there."

Incorrect. See above.

You just dont know. Wording the way you have is a attempt to make it look like you know something but you really dont know. It is a trick of words on your part and everyone can plainly see right through it.

At any rate the two statements cancel each other out. You are stating that it possible its a positive then you state that its possible that it is a negative. Net result is that you offered nothing except that you dont know one way or another, and that you wont come to a conclusion. In simple words you said "I dont know".

I apologize for the fact that I am getting such a kick out of the contortions you are going through to pretend that I am wrong in my assertion.

I wish there were a reasonable way to say I am laughing with you rather than at you...but I can't.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I don't understand what the ellipses are for in the assertion in this thread and why this has arisen in this thread when we have this other thread and OP...



Seems to me that the subject is being changed.

In a fashion your are correct here...but only because both things are being discussed.

That was acknowledge at some point already.