Anything Is Possible

I welcome my opponent grass to this debate. Thank you for accepting and good luck.I. ConstructI have a single syllogism to present as my center argument. It is as follows:P1. A situation is possible if it complies with universal lawP2. All situations can comply with a universal lawC. All situations are possibleP1 is essentially our agreed upon definition, so it stands.Premise 2 is where my argument stems from. It requires a bit of elaboration before the full meaning can be understood.To start, let's look at human sensory perception. We only know what we can sense through our variety of senses. With what we sense, we find patterns and write tangible laws upon these patterns. These universal laws, like gravitation and the laws of force, are simply patterns we observed. Objects of greater mass tended to be attracted to other objects with a greater force than less massive objects. This has always been the case, and it is assumed that it will always be the case, unless it is disproven, but I'll get into that later.So, now with that under our belt, let's delve into my point. Human senses are, of course, imperfect. They cannot sense many things, like radiation. So one can assume there are other such things in the universe that the human sensory system cannot percieve. Things which might, possibly have an affect on our universe without us knowing.Basically, unsensible laws. These laws would be unknown to us, we would therefore not be basing what we assume is possible on them. To clarify, allow me to use an example provided by Con. Flying pigs. A natural pig, that flies. The laws of our universe dictate this as impossible, or do they? The laws we can sense say that the atoms that make up the animal we know as a pig, a long with the form, disable it from being capable of flying. HoweverSince there may possibly be universal laws that we are incapable of knowing, these laws could very well allow a pig to fly. The only reason we declare that it can't is that we have yet to see it, and science dictates it not possible. Science itself claims that it never proves anything to a 100% degree. Evidence only supports a fact, never proves it. This is why anything like a sturdy law or theory is subject to change upon further evidence showing the past data obsolete.Just as science can never prove something, it can just as well never disprove anything. It can show evidence against a possibility, but future evidence could possibly show the past negative-evidence obsolete.Anyway, back to the pig example. There could, possibly, be a law humans can't sense that allows pigs to fly. This law could override the evidence that supports pigs being unable to fly. The same could be said for the transforming paper. Science shows that paper and hamburgers have different atoms, therefore a paper should not be able to transform into a humburger. Again, this is what we have determined based on evidence we can sense. A paper could very well have some ability to transform into a burger by nature of an impercievable law, it just simply hasn't yet.II. ClosingI very well understand this argument is convoluted and confusing to some. If clarification is needed, I can provide it. To those of you who can grasp what I'm getting at, thank you.Now, I pass this debate on to Con for a hopefully correctly interpreted refutation.