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

[Frank Apisa]

That is true enough.

But what you said about my assertion being false...is simply not so.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/the-penalty-box/247340-frank-ever-try-debate.html

Why thank you, Quag.

I will visit right after hitting the "Submit Reply" button for this reply.

Oops...I did go and make a comment.

But after doing so, I realized the new thread is in the basement...where the nonsense goes on and is tolerated.

I do not post in the basement. I do not intend ever to do so. (I have deleted the post.)

If you want to post a thread on this issue in the Philosophy section, fine. I would suggest you do a better job of posting what you truly intend to discuss.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I have logically, reasonable, and CONSISTENTLY defended by position. You and Quag, in particular, have not only decided that my reasoning is faulty...but that I have not even been making the defense.

You've shown me to be unwilling to have the civil, reasonable, logical conversation, so I am just going to dismiss this nonsense you are throwing at me.

Here is something that you could do to save face: Give us a link that backs what you are claiming. It should not be hard to find a site with a explanation of deductive reasoning that backs what you claim. This is a debate I cant just take your word alone. Hell if that is all I needed I would be a xtian by now. You are claiming that you have reached a logically certain conclusion. Certainties can be shown to be certainties. But you just keep repeating the claim without showing how come it is a conclusion that is reasonable and logical.

 

[Quag]

Oops...I did go and make a comment.

But after doing so, I realized the new thread is in the basement...where the nonsense goes on and is tolerated.

I do not post in the basement. I do not intend ever to do so. (I have deleted the post.)

If you want to post a thread on this issue in the Philosophy section, fine. I would suggest you do a better job of posting what you truly intend to discuss.

Frank make an actual argument to defend your statement:
You claim that not knowing something is impossible makes the impossible possible. That is what your satement means. Try and defend it or admit it is illogical.
I tried many different ways to explain, Ive opened a new thread for you at your request (pointlesslyt I might add). I've done what you have asked but you consistently refuse to do as I ask.
Insults and false claims are not arguments.
Repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument.
Saying you have made an argument is not an argument.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Here is something that you could do to save face: Give us a link that backs what you are claiming. It should not be hard to find a site with a explanation of deductive reasoning that backs what you claim. This is a debate I cant just take your word alone. Hell if that is all I needed I would be a xtian by now. You are claiming that you have reached a logically certain conclusion. Certainties can be shown to be certainties. But you just keep repeating the claim without showing how come it is a conclusion that is reasonable and logical.

I HAVE defended my position.

My position is: Until a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

I HAVE provided a definition for "possible"..."something that may or may not be true or actual."

Substituting my definition of "possible" for the word "possible" in that assertion, my position would be: Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is something that may or may not be true or actual."

My main defense is that there is no logical way to argue against that.

Unless a thing is established (conclusively shown to be impossible; ascertained to be impossible)...it is POSSIBLE.

There is no logical argument against that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank make an actual argument to defend your statement:
You claim that not knowing something is impossible makes the impossible possible. That is what your satement means. Try and defend it or admit it is illogical.
I tried many different ways to explain, Ive opened a new thread for you at your request (pointlesslyt I might add). I've done what you have asked but you consistently refuse to do as I ask.
Insults and false claims are not arguments.
Repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument.
Saying you have made an argument is not an argument.

I have made my defense...and have been logical, reasonable...and totally consistent.

You seem to think that disagreeing with my defense means you can reasonably claim I have not offered a defense.

It an absurd thing for you to be asserting.

 

[Quag]

I have made my defense...and have been logical, reasonable...and totally consistent.

You seem to think that disagreeing with my defense means you can reasonably claim I have not offered a defense.

It an absurd thing for you to be asserting.

You claim that not knowing something is impossible makes the impossible possible. That is illogical and you have never tried to defend it.
I started a thread as per your request, where you claimed you would actually make an argument.
You have failed to do so. Now I'll ask you to either start a new thread making an actual argument or post one in this thread.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You claim that not knowing something is impossible makes the impossible possible. That is illogical and you have never tried to defend it.

I DEFY YOU TO SHOW WHERE I EVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

I started a thread as per your request, where you claimed you would actually make an argument.

Yeah, in what they refer to as "The Basement."

This thread is in the Philosophy Forum...and although you seem intent on bringing this one down to the basement level...that is where you thread should be.

You have failed to do so. Now I'll ask you to either start a new thread making an actual argument or post one in this thread.

I do not care what you ask me for, Quag.

If you actually want to discuss this in a civil way...start a new thread...and discuss the topic...NOT ME.

 

[Quag]

I DEFY YOU TO SHOW WHERE I EVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

That is what your statemnt means Frank
Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.
You are stating that if is is impossible but we dont know it yet, it is possible.
That is the problem Frank you havent bothered to actually think about what you wrote.

Yeah, in what they refer to as "The Basement."

That would allow you to insult me to your hearts content without getting infracted.

This thread is in the Philosophy Forum...and although you seem intent on bringing this one down to the basement level...that is where you thread should be.

You are the one who called me gutless and claimed I lacked intelligence I was trying to keep you from getting in trouble Frank

I do not care what you ask me for, Quag.

Yet you expect me to jump through needless hoops for you?

If you actually want to discuss this in a civil way...start a new thread...and discuss the topic...NOT ME.

I have tried Frank, you haowever remain obstinate and refuse to even try and debatre.
it is rather boring.

 

[calamity]

It is possible that this thread will never end, even though that is impossible.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That is what your statemnt means Frank
Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.
You are stating that if is is impossible but we dont know it yet, it is possible.
That is the problem Frank you havent bothered to actually think about what you wrote.

I have thought about what I wrote...and I stand by it.

What you are doing is to change what I wrote; pretend that it means the same as what I wrote...and then arguing against what YOU wrote.

You oughta try taking on what I actually wrote. That would be the ethical thing to do.

That would allow you to insult me to your hearts content without getting infracted.

I have no intention of insulting anyone...even someone who makes things up rather than dealing with what a debating opponent actually writes.

You are the one who calle dme gutless and claimed I lacked intelligence I was trying to keep you from gettign in trouble Frank

I claimed you lacked intelligence???

Why do you make so much stuff up? Why don't you deal with what I actually write? Is it because you are not able to counter what I actually say...so it is easier to pretend I said something else...and then argue against that?

I never claimed you lack intelligence, Quag. Just that you are not nearly as intelligent as I thought to be. Actually, early on, I thought you were very intelligent.

You are not.

Yet you expect me to jump through needless hoops for you?

Nope...not the needless ones.

I have tried Frank, you haowever remain obstinate and refuse to even try and debatre.
it is rather boring.

What I do when a conversation gets "boring", Quag...is to leave the confersation. The fact that you are still here after almost 800 posts (MANY of which are yours) indicates this conversation might not be as boring as you are pretending you see it to be.

 

[William Rea]

I HAVE defended my position.

My position is: Until a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

I HAVE provided a definition for "possible"..."something that may or may not be true or actual."

Substituting my definition of "possible" for the word "possible" in that assertion, my position would be: Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is something that may or may not be true or actual."

My main defense is that there is no logical way to argue against that.

Unless a thing is established (conclusively shown to be impossible; ascertained to be impossible)...it is POSSIBLE.

There is no logical argument against that.

I'm going to jump back in here Frank and just add that this post confirms that you are a troll beyond any doubt.

Your post Frank #423 (my emphasis)

Here is what I said:

Are you saying I haven't?

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.

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.

My responding post #427

So what we have is that unless a thing is established as not true or actual...it may or may not be true or actual?

Your response to that post #429

I'll stick with what I said.

Unless you have a very good reason for saying that,

'...unless a thing is established as not true or actual...it may or may not be true or actual'

is not in fact an identical statement to,

'Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is something that may or may not be true or actual'

then the only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that you did not confirm this over 400 posts ago because you are a ****ing slimeball troll. If you can show your face in this thread again then I will also conclude that you are ****ing shameless with it.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I'm going to jump back in here Frank and just add that this post confirms that you are a troll beyond any doubt.

Great to see you back...but you are totally wrong. I am NOT a troll.

Your post Frank #423 (my emphasis)



My responding post #427



Your response to that post #429



Unless you have a very good reason for saying that,

Huh???

I have a "good reason" for saying everything I say.

'...unless a thing is established as not true or actual...it may or may not be true or actual'

is not in fact an identical statement to,

'Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is something that may or may not be true or actual'

then the only reasonable conclusion to draw here is that you did not confirm this over 400 posts because you are a ****ing slimeball troll. If you can show your face in this thread again then I will also conclude that you are ****ing shameless with it.

You seem to be out of sorts, William. Try to rein that in.

Not sure why you have to call me those names...but if it meets some need you have, so be it.

 

[William Rea]

...I have a "good reason" for saying everything I say...

Yup, it's because you are demonstrably a troll (as I have shown) and you think that it gives you power.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yup, it's because you are demonstrably a troll (as I have shown) and you think that it gives you power.

I am NOT a troll...so you cannot possibly have "shown" me to be one.

Claiming "victories" without earning them is a heck of an addiction!

 

[calamity]

Yup, it's because you are demonstrably a troll (as I have shown) and you think that it gives you power.

It is possible that trolls exist....it is possible that trolls do not exist.

Either way, you really should just aim to make an argument. That's the game here: make an argument or move on.

 

[William Rea]

It is possible that trolls exist....it is possible that trolls do not exist.

Either way, you really should just aim to make an argument. That's the game here: make an argument or move on.

Evidence and argument, an example taken from a bigger picture

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ed-impossible-possible-79.html#post1065587924

 

[Frank Apisa]

Evidence and argument, an example taken from a bigger picture

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ed-impossible-possible-79.html#post1065587924

I am NOT a troll...I have defended my position...and my position is rock solid.

 

[William Rea]

I am NOT a troll...I have defended my position...and my position is rock solid.

And shameless with it Frank.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And shameless with it Frank.

No reason for shame.

I am NOT a troll...I have defended my position...and my position is rock solid.

You must be a Yorkshireman.

 

[nota bene]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop talking about who's a troll now. Please.

 

[Ikari]

It is possible that this thread will never end, even though that is impossible.

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some people started responding to it, not knowing what it was
And they'll be responding forever just because
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friend
Some people started responding to it, not knowing what it was
And they'll be responding forever just because
This is the thread that never ends....

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I HAVE defended my position.

My position is: Until a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

I HAVE provided a definition for "possible"..."something that may or may not be true or actual."

Substituting my definition of "possible" for the word "possible" in that assertion, my position would be: Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is something that may or may not be true or actual."

My main defense is that there is no logical way to argue against that.

Unless a thing is established (conclusively shown to be impossible; ascertained to be impossible)...it is POSSIBLE.

There is no logical argument against that.

This is why a education is important. The type of "possible" that you should be looking into is logical possibility.


logically possible
adj
(Logic) capable of being described without self-contradiction

may or may not is a self-contradiction. Something is not logically possible if it is a inconsistency. Simplistically though at a grade school level you are correct. But since you are talking about logic your argument is pointless.

 

[Frank Apisa]

This is why a education is important. The type of "possible" that you should be looking into is logical possibility.


logically possible
adj
(Logic) capable of being described without self-contradiction

may or may not is a self-contradiction. Something is not logically possible if it is a inconsistency. Simplistically though at a grade school level you are correct. But since you are talking about logic your argument is pointless.

Nice try. No cigar.

My assertion if logical, reasonable...and consistent. There is no contradiction in it.

Also...it is right on the mark.

Not sure why that bothers you guys so much. It really is not that important an observation. It simply IS an observation.

 

[William Rea]

This is why a education is important. The type of "possible" that you should be looking into is logical possibility.


logically possible
adj
(Logic) capable of being described without self-contradiction

may or may not is a self-contradiction. Something is not logically possible if it is a inconsistency. Simplistically though at a grade school level you are correct. But since you are talking about logic your argument is pointless.

And the, 'Triangles have three sides' one, really? Definitional truths 101.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And the, 'Triangles have three sides' one, really? Definitional truths 101.

Yeah...definitional truths are important to this discussion...because they can illustrate something that is established as IMPOSSIBLE.

It is impossible for a triangle to have four sides.

It is impossible for a sphere to be square.

It is impossible for 2 + 2 to equal anything but 4 in base ten.

That is establishing things as impossible.

Unless a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.