• 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.

Paralogic said:
Awww... did reality hurt your precious feelings?

If it did, enjoy the *fact* that the brand new espresso coffee machine in my office is controlling your existence, your thoughts, your dreams, your biomass, your brain and all your neuron activity... until you die.

Let's see you establish my claim above as impossible! Because if you can't, then it's possible!

LOL... idiots are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...

You and your eleven friends can do what they want. Leave me out of it. I've got better uses for my dime.
 
Unless something is known as impossible or possible, it is not known to be impossible or possible.
Unless something is proven to be impossible or possible, it is not proven to be impossible or possible.

Sorry Frank, this "establish" and "possible" stuff is not meaningful.

I've also shown you that it's absurd.
P1: "Z" is impossible
P2: Bob has no knowledge of P1
:: Bob uses Frank's proposition and claims "because Z is not established as impossible, Z is possible!"
This contradicts P1, therefore your proposition is false.
 
Mach said:
Unless something is known as impossible or possible, it is not known to be impossible or possible.
Unless something is proven to be impossible or possible, it is not proven to be impossible or possible.
...
Click to expand...
I don't buy that. Lot's of things that are not known to be or proven to be possible are indeed possible. In 1950, it was not know or proven to be possible to send a man to the moon, but it was possible after all. I'm sure many people said it was impossible.
 
Mach said:
Unless something is known as impossible or possible, it is not known to be impossible or possible.
Unless something is proven to be impossible or possible, it is not proven to be impossible or possible.

Sorry Frank, this "establish" and "possible" stuff is not meaningful.

I've also shown you that it's absurd.
P1: "Z" is impossible
P2: Bob has no knowledge of P1
:: Bob uses Frank's proposition and claims "because Z is not established as impossible, Z is possible!"
This contradicts P1, therefore your proposition is false.
Click to expand...

My proposition is not false, Mach.

It most assuredly is possible that gods exist...and it most assuredly is possible that there are no gods.

If that does not make sense to you using your "z" and "p1"...use something else. I would suggest just plain common sense.
 
calamity said:
I don't buy that. Lot's of things that are not known to be or proven to be possible are indeed possible. In 1950, it was not know or proven to be possible to send a man to the moon, but it was possible after all. I'm sure many people said it was impossible.
Click to expand...
What you wrote doesn't contradict what I wrote. Maybe you read it wrong, I can see why, because its actually just stating the obvious, which is what Frank refuses to do.
 
Frank Apisa said:
My proposition is not false, Mach.
Click to expand...
The clear refutation shows it's false. You are simply saying "no its not". That's not an argument Frank.

It most assuredly is possible that gods exist...and it most assuredly is possible that there are no gods.
Click to expand...
False. If we had a definition of god, which we don't, the true statement is:
its possible or it's not possible.

You clearly wrote AND, which makes your statement false.

If that does not make sense to you using your "z" and "p1"...use something else. I would suggest just plain common sense.
Click to expand...
If P1 and Z confuse you as variables, this is troubling.
 
Mach said:
What you wrote doesn't contradict what I wrote. Maybe you read it wrong, I can see why, because its actually just stating the obvious, which is what Frank refuses to do.
Click to expand...

I have responded to you clearly and concisely, Mach.

Why don't you drop that attitude?
 
Mach said:
The clear refutation shows it's false. You are simply saying "no its not". That's not an argument Frank.
Click to expand...

My statement is NOT false. Deal with that.


False. If we had a definition of god, which we don't, the true statement is:
its possible or it's not possible.
Click to expand...

I have given a definition of how I am using the word "god" in this assertion...and my assertion is spot on.

It IS possible there are gods...AND...it also IS possible there are no gods.

You clearly wrote AND, which makes your statement false.
Click to expand...

It cannot make my statement false...since it is not false.


If P1 and Z confuse you as variables, this is troubling.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you are troubled.
 
Mach said:
Unless something is known as impossible or possible, it is not known to be impossible or possible.
Unless something is proven to be impossible or possible, it is not proven to be impossible or possible.

Sorry Frank, this "establish" and "possible" stuff is not meaningful.

I've also shown you that it's absurd.
P1: "Z" is impossible
P2: Bob has no knowledge of P1
:: Bob uses Frank's proposition and claims "because Z is not established as impossible, Z is possible!"
This contradicts P1, therefore your proposition is false.
Click to expand...

In one of the other threads similar to this, I created new terms to simplify this.

Possibility from ignorance.

Possibility from potential.

Possibility from ignorance is the coin example. Flip a coin, catch it, slap it down and keep your hand over it. Head or Tails are still possible only because you are ignorant of how the coin landed. But the coin has landed, it has happened, it can not be changed, it has no potential to be anything besides what it landed on. The possibility vanishes once you lift your hand. If the coin is heads, it was never possible for it to be tails, even though in ignorance it seemed that way before you lifted your hand. This form of possibility is an illusion. It is not true possibility. But, this is how we use the word, and frequently, but its obviously very different from possibility from potential.

Before the coin is flipped, it is possible for it to be either heads or tails. It has not happened yet. It has the potential to be either. Just like the round square is impossible because it has no potential to exist. Possibility from potential. This is true possibility and not just a function of language and perspective.

I assert that, categorically, all possibility from ignorance is simply the illusion of possibility. A faulty assumption that anything that is unknown is possible until proven otherwise. Good advice for life in general if you acknowledge the assumption for what it is, but not logically sound.
 
shagg said:
Before the coin is flipped, it is possible for it to be either heads or tails. It has not happened yet. It has the potential to be either. Just like the round square is impossible because it has no potential to exist. Possibility from potential. This is true possibility and not just a function of language and perspective.
Click to expand...

Science may be used to make justifiable prediction of what the future will evidence. It is sufficient.
It does not evidence that "it is a true possibility".

Before the coin is flipped, you can reasonably predict it will be either heads or tails, based on good science.
And yet if it lands on its side, or is vaporized by a high powered laser sitting right below it before it hits, reality will evidence that your "true possibility" was indistinguishable from your "illusion" scenario. Science is falsifiable in that we can go back and see our premises were false.
a. a coin will land
b. a "landed" coin will be showing either heads or tails.

Scientific knowledge of reality ultimately appeals to evidence/observation of reality (and we use reason/logic/language as the framework). If any of us bozos try to claim some nonsense about reality that isn't observable/evidenced, bust us please.
 
calamity said:
I don't buy that. Lot's of things that are not known to be or proven to be possible are indeed possible. In 1950, it was not know or proven to be possible to send a man to the moon, but it was possible after all. I'm sure many people said it was impossible.
Click to expand...

What you wrote doesn't contradict my statement, look again, I can see how you mistook it for something similar though.
 
calamity said:
Lots of things are possible today which were thought to be impossible a century ago. So...who knows? Today running a 3-minute mile appears to be impossible. But history shows that it probably is not.

Of course, by the time someone does actually run that fast, no one will remember anymore what the hell a mile is though.
Click to expand...

As a former track and cross country runner who ran the 1500, mile and 2 mile I can tell you with no uncertainty that a sub 3 minute mile (naturally of course) is impossible lol.
 
The thread title is incorrect.

Take the p=np problem (a famous problem in computer science that hasn't been solved). It asks wether it is possible for a problem that can be verified by a computer quickly to also be solved by a computer quickly.

It has not been established that it is impossible. That doesn't mean that it is possible or impossible. We simply don't know. If you did know it was possible, then you'd be in line for a 1,000,000 prize from the clay mathematics institute (and maybe even a Nobel prize).
 
Last edited:
akrunner88 said:
As a former track and cross country runner who ran the 1500, mile and 2 mile I can tell you with no uncertainty that a sub 3 minute mile (naturally of course) is impossible lol.
Click to expand...

43 seconds to go before someone comes close. It'll be a while.
 
Nilly said:
The thread title is incorrect.

Take the p=np problem (a famous problem in computer science that hasn't been solved). It asks wether it is possible for a problem that can be verified by a computer quickly to also be solved by a computer quickly.

It has not been established that it is impossible. That doesn't mean that it is possible or impossible. We simply don't know. If you did know it was possible, then you'd be in line for a 1,000,000 prize from the clay mathematics institute (and maybe even a Nobel prize).
Click to expand...

The fact that we do not know...indicates that it is possible. If it were not possible...we would know that.

Being "possible" includes the "we do not know."

Once we KNOW it is impossible...that precludes it being possible.
 
calamity said:
If you're such a genius, then you should have no trouble understanding that all Frank is doing is saying that unless you know X is impossible it is possible. Not exactly rocket science here, but yet it seems to generate multiple pages in a half-dozen threads. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hey Einstein, I know exactly what Frank is saying, I've known what he has been trying to say from the start. You are yapping around the wrong legs pup.
 
William Rea said:
Hey Einstein, I know exactly what Frank is saying, I've known what he has been trying to say from the start. You are yapping around the wrong legs pup.
Click to expand...

Well, if you know what he is saying, then there should be no argument since his assertion is obviously 100% factually correct. But yet, here we are on page three of thread six.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Try it with you eyes open.
Click to expand...

Absolutely classic diversion stuff. That is exactly what the theist/mystics say as well Frank, it kind of confirms what I have been saying all along, fundagelical agnosticism is just another one in a long list of dogmatic creeds; No thinking required, just learn the mantra, 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible'.
 
calamity said:
Well, if you know what he is saying, then there should be no argument since his assertion is obviously 100% factually correct. But yet, here we are on page three of thread six.
Click to expand...

Well, you are entitled to believe what you like. My reasons, and other posters' reasons are on record and Frank has handwaved them all away so, at least he has been consistent with that.
 
William Rea said:
Absolutely classic diversion stuff. That is exactly what the theist/mystics say as well Frank, it kind of confirms what I have been saying all along, fundagelical agnosticism is just another one in a long list of dogmatic creeds; No thinking required, just learn the mantra, 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible', 'impossible, possible'.
Click to expand...

Stop digging!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom