English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Anything is possible.
It is therefore possible that what the previous sentence says is impossible.

**Answers involving actual thought are encouraged;)**

2007-08-12 19:59:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

Parrot Bay: I actually DO believe that anything is possible. I believe you can be reincarnated and be that 12 year old girl. I think you are missing the point of the question anyway. Even if you don't believe that first sentence, the two sentences logically contradict each other.

2007-08-12 20:12:26 · update #1

20 answers

It means that the statement is logically flawed... that is why we need to say "Nothing is impossible" to convey the meaning properly without any fallacy. But for logic, all our experience would have meant little to us. It is logic that gives any meaning to an experience which would otherwise be mere meaningless event.

2007-08-12 20:11:26 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 1 1

In reality the statement "anything is possible" is merely a generalization. Just because we say it all the time doesn't mean that we actually "think" its true.

The two sentences appear as though they contradict each other logically but actually they don't. A possible impossibility is itself still "a possiblity".

So the question is, if what the previous sentence says is impossible, then can we still say that anything is possible?

Yes we can because "the possible" could come "before" the impossible". The possiblity then becomes the proess or the "expected outcome" and the impossiblity which is the "actual outcome" of the possible.

Hope my answer makes sense :-)

2007-08-12 21:08:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

With the given two sentences, your logic is correct. This is based on the first premise that anything is possible. So there might be a possibility that anything possible is impossible. True in a sense. However, the logic here you are referring is not flawed because again your conclusion is therefore correct.

You must not based your two sentences from what you thought but on the correct reasoning you have deduced.

2007-08-12 21:52:20 · answer #3 · answered by Third P 6 · 0 0

If people in the US are eating more fat foods, and people in the US are living longer, should Americans eat more fat foods.
Nobody truly believes ANYTHING is possible. Example. I will never be a 12 year old girl. so you are starting out with an untruth.
Also, Even Spock realized Logic is flawed

2007-08-12 20:03:23 · answer #4 · answered by Parrot Bay 4 · 0 0

No.

Logic is not flawed because you cannot flaw logic. If something is flawed it is not logical because logical things must make sense and must not be incorrect.

Those two sentences are therefore not logic, and cannot be related to logic itself. The become subjective opinions and therefore should be debated until one is proven totally correct, at which point that becomes logic and the proven false statement becomes illogic.

2007-08-12 22:44:20 · answer #5 · answered by shadowrench 3 · 1 0

Its the English language which is flawed.

Language is how contradictions are formed... contradictions are nothing but language.

Another point, nothing is perfect - So of course logic is still going to have its flaws.
It really depends on what you perceive the sentence to truly mean.

2007-08-12 20:35:11 · answer #6 · answered by Amanda// 2 · 1 0

No, because the second sentence only discusses the possibility of paradoxical impossibility, and therefore acknowledges the fallibility of the former sentence.

If you want an even shorter one, try this: "This sentence is a lie."

2007-08-12 20:08:15 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1 0

The validity of the second sentence depends on the validity of the first, but the first is invalid.

Or, in other words, since the first assertion is false, the second, dependent on it, must be false as well. Or still, the first is sensless therefore the second is pointless.

2007-08-12 22:32:28 · answer #8 · answered by shades of Bruno 5 · 0 0

I'd say that sounds like a pretty good logical proof that the first statement is false. Not an indictment of logic though.

2007-08-12 20:12:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Your perception of "god" must be horribly small if, according to your question, he can be confined within the "rationale" of logic. God, with a capital "G", as in Jesus our Christ, is so far above and beyond logic that the only sensible structure to your question might be "The only way logic could exist is if God Himself is flawed", and since that is totally impossible, even that form of your question is illogical and flawed. God Bless you.

2016-05-21 04:08:51 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers