• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

Frank Apisa said:
Technically correct???

It IS correct.
Click to expand...

there is probably some logical equation that would explain it but you are going from "Could be possible" to "YAY, IT IS POSSIBLE!"

its like saying 35 might be larger than X, so 35 IS larger than X

only because X is the word "possible" now you have managed to get around that constraint of proving it (in your mind)

this is democrat kind of thinking (pass the law to find out whats in it, etc)
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
It is impossible for me to be sure but you possible could be correct ;)
Click to expand...

It is possible for me to be sure that it is impossible for him to be right.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You really do not get it.

Really!

Wow. I have been wrong about one thing.

You are not nearly as intelligent as I thought you were.

Your statement



...absolutely is WRONG.
Click to expand...

So you I destroyed your argument and instead of trying to defend yourself or admit your error you have turned to insults.
That is beneath you Frank.
 
If a thing is possible it cannot be impossible.

However, we do not know that a thing is possible without evidence of it having occurred.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is possible there are gods (that gods exist).

It is also possible there are no gods (that no gods exist).

One of those things is the actuality...what actually exists.

If one could be established as what is...the other will have been established as impossible.

Until then...both are POSSIBLE.

It is possible that there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 1000 stars to Sol.

It is also possible that there are no sentient beings living on any of those planets.

One of those things is the actuality...what actually exists.

If we were to travel to one of those planets and discover sentient beings living on it...the other (that no sentient beings live on any of them) will have been established as impossible.

Until then...both are possible.
Click to expand...

Frank, does our discovery of the sentient beings change the reality or truth of their existence?
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
So you I destroyed your argument and instead of trying to defend yourself or admit your error you have turned to insults.
That is beneath you Frank.
Click to expand...

You have not destroyed anything. You are claiming a victory that you do not have.

You said something illogical...and if you were as intelligent as I thought you were, you would have realized your mistake immediately...rather than trying this "offended" nonsense.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...

Right, so how does establishing that something is in reality or truth impossible mean that it never was always impossible in reality or truth? How does establishing that something in reality or truth is possible mean that it never was always possible in reality or truth?
 
trollarc said:
It is impossible for the possible to be impossible.
Click to expand...

It is also impossible for the impossible to be possible. However, it could be possible not know if something is possible or if something is impossible.

 
William Rea said:
Right, so how does establishing that something is in reality or truth impossible mean that it never was always impossible in reality or truth? How does establishing that something in reality or truth is possible mean that it never was always possible in reality or truth?
Click to expand...

Until it is established, Bill...IT IS POSSIBLE. I have said that consistently throughout this discussion...and said it specifically in the thread title.

That is why I am saying that last thing Quag wrote is wrong.

Take this as an example (and really think about it):

IT is POSSIBLE that there are oxygen breathing, sentient beings living on the fourth planet out circling the twenty-fifth closest star to Sol.

It is POSSIBLE.

Now...if we get to the point where we can examine the atmosphere of that particular planet...and find either that there is no atmosphere at all...or that the atmosphere does not contain any oxygen at all...or that there are no sentient beings living on the planet...

...then it is IMPOSSIBLE that there are oxygen breathing, sentient beings living there.

But that required that we ESTABLISH that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Until we did...it was POSSIBLE.

I do not see how you folk are not getting this.

It is in the nature of the word "possible."
 
Quag said:
Moot have you read this thread
If you flip a two headed coin it can come up heads or tails.
Now if it turns out the coin is two headed it cannot come up tails can it?
According to Franks statement:
unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.
It was actually possible for the 2 headed coin to come up tails until we found out it was a 2 headed coin, this is of course false.
However if he reworded the phrase to
unless a thing is established as impossible it could be possible. it becomes logically sound as it allows for it actually being impossible.
Click to expand...


I think a two headed coin IS evidence of a coin that can't land tails up. In this case, I am using inductive reasoning to "establish" that it is possible for a two headed coin to land tails up because we can observe that the positive physical evidence that the coin has two heads. We can also observe the negative physical evidence that the coin has no tail and therefore impossible for the coin to land tails up. But flip a coin that has a head and a tail and there are two possibilities, heads or tails, but we can't be certain if it will land heads up or tails up(without cheating). The uncertainty creates unknown possibility of landing heads up or tails. On the other hand, dropping a two headed coin is deductive reasoning because we can say with certainty to "establish" that it will always land heads up and impossible to land tails up. I hope that makes sense. lol
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
Until it is established, Bill...IT IS POSSIBLE. I have said that consistently throughout this discussion...and said it specifically in the thread title.

That is why I am saying that last thing Quag wrote is wrong.

Take this as an example (and really think about it):

IT is POSSIBLE that there are oxygen breathing, sentient beings living on the fourth planet out circling the twenty-fifth closest star to Sol.

It is POSSIBLE.

Now...if we get to the point where we can examine the atmosphere of that particular planet...and find either that there is no atmosphere at all...or that the atmosphere does not contain any oxygen at all...or that there are no sentient beings living on the planet...

...then it is IMPOSSIBLE that there are oxygen breathing, sentient beings living there.

But that required that we ESTABLISH that it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Until we did...it was POSSIBLE.

I do not see how you folk are not getting this.

It is in the nature of the word "possible."
Click to expand...

How does establishing that something is in reality or truth impossible mean that it never was always impossible in reality or truth? How does establishing that something in reality or truth is possible mean that it never was always possible in reality or truth?
 
Moot said:
I think a two headed coin IS evidence of a coin that can't land tails up. In this case, I am using inductive reasoning to "establish" that it is impossible for a two headed coin to land tails up because we can observe that the positive physical evidence that the coin has two heads. We can also observe the negative physical evidence that the coin has no tail. But flip a coin that has a head and a tail and there are two possibilities, heads or tails, but it is impossible to know if it will land heads up or tails up(without cheating). On the other hand, dropping a two headed coin is deductive reasoning because we can say with certainty that it will always land heads up and impossible to land tails up. I hope that makes sense. lol
Click to expand...

The two headed coin is a thought experiment that demonstrates that Frank's assertion is not axiomatic or self evident. The point of the thought experiment is that we do not know that the coin is two headed.
 
William Rea said:
How does establishing that something is in reality or truth impossible mean that it never was always impossible in reality or truth?
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

But until it is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE...no matter the actuality.

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

There is no getting around that.

IT DEFINITELY IS POSSIBLE.

If you want to debate that...we can start a thread on it devoted solely to the question:

Is it POSSIBLE there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 1000 stars to Sol?

We could put that to people on the street. Ask it of people at random in Times Square or Piccadilly Circus...and after asking 10,000 people...

...what would you suppose the VAST preponderance of people would reply?

What would you reply?

So that absolutely is POSSIBLE.

But if we were to travel to every one of those planets...and find that not a living thing of any kind existed on any of them...

...the actuality would be that there are no living things on any of them.

That would not change anything about the statements made at the beginning of this reply.

Surely you see that.

IF that scenario prevailed...it would be that something possible...was impossible.

It is the nature of the word.



How does establishing that something in reality or truth is possible mean that it never was always possible in reality or truth?
Click to expand...

See above.
 
William Rea said:
The two headed coin is a thought experiment that demonstrates that Frank's assertion is not axiomatic or self evident. The point of the thought experiment is that we do not know that the coin is two headed.
Click to expand...

Then the proposition is not "is it possible to come up tails"...the proposition is "is it possible the coin has a side designated as tails?"

The two headed coin "thought experiment"...is a con...a trick.

If you were to ask me, "Is it possible for a coin with no side designated as tails...to be flipped and come up tails"...I would say "no."
 
Frank Apisa said:
It doesn't...See above.
Click to expand...

So you agree that our ignorance or lack of ignorance does not change reality or truth? That we have established or not established something does not change the nature of reality, it just changes our knowledge of it?

Frank, I asked you for a definition of 'possible', you gave me one and when I inserted that definition into your assertion you rejected it. I have asked you to define 'establish' and you have refused to do so. I am now forced to try to get you to reveal precisely what you intend to say in your assertion by tediously teasing it out of you with questions and you are just trying to circle around these. The only reasonable conclusion that any neutral observer can make from this thread is the one that I came to several posts ago; If you cannot offer up this stuff in a reasonable and honest way then you are literally trolling this forum, you may not be aware that this is what you are doing and this facade of bonhomie may be one derived from complete ignorance of the sheer wall of dumb that you are creating. I think that because I know that you are an agnostic that I have some understanding of what you are trying to say but, it is not what you are saying or at best, what you are saying is not precise enough to correspond with your intent.
 
William Rea said:
The two headed coin is a thought experiment that demonstrates that Frank's assertion is not axiomatic or self evident. The point of the thought experiment is that we do not know that the coin is two headed.
Click to expand...

But you know it's a coin. Not knowing if the coin is two headed is absence of evidence, which evidence in itself. In other words, the absence of evidence is evidence, not evidence of absence. Not knowing if the coin is two headed coin doesn't mean it doesn't have two heads and it doesn't mean it does. It simply means the evidence of two heads on the coin hasn't been established and leaves it possible that it does have two heads..or not.
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
Then the proposition is not "is it possible to come up tails"...the proposition is "is it possible the coin has a side designated as tails?"

The two headed coin "thought experiment"...is a con...a trick.

If you were to ask me, "Is it possible for a coin with no side designated as tails...to be flipped and come up tails"...I would say "no."
Click to expand...

Frank, I say three beans plus one and you say some beans rather than four. I'm done with you on this subject; Maybe I'll go and discuss it with the Apes of the Indus.
 
William Rea said:
So you agree that our ignorance or lack of ignorance does not change reality or truth? That we have established or not established something does not change the nature of reality, it just changes our knowledge of it?

Frank, I asked you for a definition of 'possible', you gave me one and when I inserted that definition into your assertion you rejected it.
Click to expand...

I most assuredly did NOT reject it. I simply changed the erroneous way you plugged my definition (or clarification) in. YOU did it incorrectly...and I corrected it.

If you want to go back and discuss that...I am more than willing...because you absolutely did it incorrectly.


I have asked you to define 'establish' and you have refused to do so. I am now forced to try to get you to reveal precisely what you intend to say in your assertion by tediously teasing it out of you with questions and you are just trying to circle around these. The only reasonable conclusion that any neutral observer can make from this thread is the one that I came to several posts ago; If you cannot offer up this stuff in a reasonable and honest way then you are literally trolling this forum, you may not be aware that this is what you are doing and this facade of bonhomie may be one derived from complete ignorance of the sheer wall of dumb that you are creating. I think that because I know that you are an agnostic that I have some understanding of what you are trying to say but, it is not what you are saying or at best, what you are trying to say is not precise enough.
Click to expand...

I am not trolling this forum or this thread or anything else.

I have explained myself clearly and consistently.

The moment this "define" nonsense starts...everyone realizes the person asking for the definition has lost the argument.

If you have a problem with the expression:

Unless a thing is established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE...

...this probably is not the thread for you.
 
William Rea said:
Frank, I say three beans plus one and you say some beans rather than four. I'm done with you on this subject; Maybe I'll go and discuss it with the Apes of the Indus.
Click to expand...

See ya around!
 
Frank Apisa said:
I most assuredly did NOT reject it. I simply changed the erroneous way you plugged my definition (or clarification) in. YOU did it incorrectly...and I corrected it.

If you want to go back and discuss that...I am more than willing...because you absolutely did it incorrectly.




I am not trolling this forum or this thread or anything else.

I have explained myself clearly and consistently.

The moment this "define" nonsense starts...everyone realizes the person asking for the definition has lost the argument.

If you have a problem with the expression:

Unless a thing is established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE...

...this probably is not the thread for you.
Click to expand...

You've stuck to your guns while ignoring all the arguments which suggest you may want to refine your hypothesis.

"Unless a thing is established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE," is incorrect as stated. Many things are indeed impossible, even though we have not yet established this fact. You've been shown countless examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom