Willful ignorance is worse. So far you have shotgunned points and not talked about the points given in a adequate way.

It's never happened and never will but why isn't it still a real possibility? Do you think that everything that's a real possibility has to eventually happen? But surely somethings are really possible even though they never happen. How do you tell the difference? Is that also just obvious to you? It's not to me.

The explanation is that men do not have the necessary anatomical equipment to become pregnant.

That men have never been pregnant is not why they will never be pregnant. Who believes that?

How do you determine what the necessary anatomical equipment to become pregnant is? Oh, what's that you say? Because that's just what you always observe?



You do, implicitly. See above. You are always appealing to what always or never happens, even if it's in an indirect way.

your whole argument boils down to basically saying 'well just because we've never observed 1 plus 1 equaling 3 doesn't mean it can't happen, and concluding that adding 1 to 1 does in fact actually give you 2 would be false as it's mere happenstance.'

that seems to me to be your argument. correct or not?

You need to recognize the difference between something that will not happen and something that cannot happen.

please tie it together for me...yes I recognize the difference....I could become president when I turn 45 but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I won't. But of course that doesn't mean it cannot happen. Your point?


ADDED

As far as I can tell you are saying there is no such thing as "cannot happen"....only "will not happen"

Yes, there is no such thing as "physically cannot happen" which is another way of saying physically impossible. Of course, I'm not denying that some things are logically impossible e.g. four-sided triangles.

I'm confused by your statement physically cannot happen. what do you mean by that? a turtle physically cannot talk. turtles do not posses the vocal chords or brain centers to do such a thing. I cannot bicep curl 1,000,000,000 lbs. it physically cannot happen based on my skeletal and muscular structure. I cannot fly. I lack the aerodynamics and the thrust to get airborne and I lack the means to remain airborne. I'm not sure what you mean.

I doubt that 'trying and failing' will do the trick. After all, many times we try to do something, fail at it, and yet - for whatever reasons - do not conclude "I can't do it." (It happened to me recently. I was trying to install a new pump on a dishwasher and was having no success, indeed I was failing miserably. I stopped for a while, tried again, and succeeded.) I am absolutely convinced that there is no phenomenological, introspective, felt (call it what you will) difference whatsoever between failing to do something which is possible (e.g. installing a dishwasher pump) and failing to do something which necessitarians call 'nomically impossible', e.g. flapping my arms and flying.

What do I feel when I find that I repeatedly fail to do something? Disappointment, remorse, anger, sadness, annoyance, irritability, fury, etc. Do I experience (physical or nomological) impossibility? Not that I can tell. I would not know how to recognize it if I did. I can experience that I have not done what I wanted; that I have tried especially hard; etc. But I do not see that I have experienced that I cannot do it. I may say, "I can't do it." But I have not experienced anything more than failure.

How many times must we touch a stove til we figure out that there really is a connection between the heat and the pain I feel?

You're missing the point. I'm already assuming for the sake of argument that the following statement is true:

1. If you put your hand on a red hot stove you will get burned.

You're missing the point. I'm already assuming for the sake of argument that the following statement is true:

1. If you put your hand on a red hot stove you will get burned.

Even though (1) is true, that doesn't imply that it's physically impossible for (1) to be false.

But why do you believe this, if it is not physically necessary? Is it probable, and if so, why?

How do you determine what the necessary anatomical equipment to become pregnant is? Oh, what's that you say? Because that's just what you always observe?



You do, implicitly. See above. You are always appealing to what always or never happens, even if it's in an indirect way.

well maybe not in and of itself but upon further testing we can conclude that, yes, indeed it is physically impossible for (1) to be false.

we can figure out what aspect of the red hot stove causes us to burn....we can test if it's the shape by touching other things of similar shape.
we can test if its the color and can touch other things of the same color...we can test if its the location and touch other things in the same area.

we can then figure out what it is about the stove that burns us...in this way we can rule things out and continue doing this until we've figure out what causes us to burn, namely...heat.

this is a typical method used by science and how we learn about the world around us.

We have very good reasons for thinking that what anatomical equipment males have will not let them become pregnant.

In other words, the proposition that males can become pregnant, and the proposition that males lack the physical equipment to become pregnant are logically incompatible.

That's logical impossibility not physical impossibility. I agree logical impossibility exists.

If p and q are logically impossible, then p and q are physically impossible.