We can solve this very quickly, Archer. Do you feel I've made any claim that is preposterous? If yes, please quote it.
What is your evidence for your claims?
Now that you've backed yourself into a corner, Archer, it would probably be a good time to reintroduce yourself to sleep.
Can you expand on your claims and explain them more concisely?
My only claim is that we don't know. Simple, for such an apparently controversial claim, isn't it?
It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility, doesn't it?
Are you sure that was your claim?
Yes, and that's the nature of possibility, isn't it?
Are you sure of that? What is the definition and nature of possibility? Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?
So are we arguing whether packs of conjoined gorillas are roaming midtown, or..?You need to apply your argument directly to the subject, or it will not make sense.
Expand on this? How is this logical?
It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility (IN THIS CASE), doesn't it?
Maybe this will help you understand, Archer:How's that?
Are you sure a slight modification renders the statement logical and true? What's the difference between the two? Where is the evidence that in this particulat case such a possibility is more possible than another or that it is possible at all? What sets the possible apart from the impossible in this instance? You need something to set the two apart like evidence that one has more validity than another. How did you decide that was true?
Is it? Please tell me.
You said it was possible in this case. Why do you think that? How did you come to that decision? How does a lack of evidence lead one to the conclusion that the the subject of which has no evidence is possible?
Because the anchoring questions are whether people have shown an otherwise-incredible ability to pursue scientific problems (we have); whether we could leave earth (we can, and have); whether technology advances exponentially when given the chance (it does).For these reasons and more, it can be called a possibility, and comfortably so. Does that help?It seems a lack of conclusive proof to the contrary can't help but to reveal such a possibility (IN THIS CASE), doesn't it?
How does the lack of conclusive proof to the contrary make such a thing possible? The absense of evidence is not evidence. Should you research an argument from ignorance?
It isn't merely an absence of proof to the contrary, though, is it? It is the presence of science, technology, determination, and other things. Right?
How does that prove something is possible, as you claim it does in this case? Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?
...by doing the very thing, itself, are you asking?
Archer, if you're asking (of all things) how science, technology and determination are related to the nature of possibility, I'm not sure what to say.
Im asking how you believe that no evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all proves something is possible? How did you arrive at this conclusion and do you believe that is an example of sound logic?
It isn't merely an absence of proof to the contrary, though, is it? It is the presence of science, technology, determination, and other things.Right?
