09-30-2015, 06:29 PM
(09-30-2015, 04:48 PM)McC Wrote: I don't see why both can't be true. In fact, both are true. It is true that Marvin beat Bill, proving it's not impossible. It is also true that the past doesn't dictate the future.
Yesterday, the baby couldn't walk. Doesn't mean he won't in the future.
If the past doesn't dictate the future, you can't use the past as the reason why something is possible in the future.
The two statements contradict each other. That's just the way it is with the wording of each sentence. I'm not the guy that created the words and I didn't define them. It's mind blowing that there are people that think certain words don't have absolutely defined meanings.
This has nothing to do with your baby analogy, completely different case here. I'll try to explain yet again...
Marvin CAN beat Bill, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 2013. The statement that Marvin can beat Bill is absolutely the truth, but not for the reason that you and Fred are claiming. 2013 has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of the event happening in the 2015 playoffs. If you're going to claim the past doesn't dictate the future, you especially can't claim the reason Marvin can beat Bill has something to do with 2013. You'd be wrong on 2 different levels if that's your claim.
