Something which is impossible can't be possible. It's illogical to say that something which is impossible can be possible.

When it comes to science, they say that you can't say that something is impossible. Because the more you find out about the world, more things become possible. It's all about imagination and trying to find out if the imagination can be made possible. If it can be made possible, then it's not impossible. Someday, we might even be able to lift objects just by looking at them. Who knows?

And about chasing goals... people say that "nothing is impossible", because sometimes we feel like it's impossible to do something. But the truth is that our mind or belief restricts our potentials. If you believe you can achieve something, then you really can achieve it.

As there is a diversification in any relative society in this Social World, this Planet, this Universe, this Dimension; so is there the same diversification throughout all the dimensions, that, in this particular plane of relative 'reality', may be considered 'paranormal', as, it is beyond a common individuals' perception.

Good can exists without Evil; however, Evil can not exists unless it has Good too feed upon.

We, as sentient beings, have a natural inbred instinct, designed in our DNA, too promote the preservation of the Species.

Providing for others is a fundamental responsibility of each individual in any relative society, too promote social evolution and maintain the survival of a species.

It's difficult to say when we all think so differently. It's a fundamental error to assume we all think the same, not as in a conclusion, but the process of reaching that conclusion.

Understanding the process used by others is fundamental to empathising with them where, despite disagreeing, you can relate yourself to the perspective they adopt. Thinking involves so many aspects of individuality and self that no two people are going to think in the same way.

Fortunately this doesn't preclude us reaching a consensus and tolerating the idiosyncrasies of others.

It's also worth considering that we can change the way we think and become more focused, critical, and particularly objective.

In Hegel, there is Spirit as Idea, and there is Spirit as Nature. The movement from Idea to Nature is not necessarily paradoxical, but it is the weakest point (as given by Croce, who called it "panlogism"--i.e., an attempt to bridge over (qua "synthesis") what Croce termed "dualism" of Idea and Nature). Thus, Hegel's "panlogism" is a conflation of what Plato delineates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_... In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of... Plato finds the Light of Truth to be the alchemical key for "phase change" or "quantum leap." Given that Spirit is (incorporates) Light (Truth), then Idea as "road to Damascus" type of experience moves the Hegelian dialectic from Idea to Holy Spirit.
If you/your instructor is/are Left Hegelian (cf Kojeve's "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit"), the reductionism of Left Hegelianism tends to elide Spirit as Light/Energy (Hegel's awareness of Christ, Truth, as in-Forming historical events), and therefore finds, as did Croce, a kind of Platonic/Kantian distinction/dualism between 5-sense data and Noumenal/Ideas of Mind, hence a "paradox" as to how "synthesis" arises from two contesting forces (e.g., "visible" and "intelligible"). Carl Jung (somewhat reductively) termed the Platonic/Hegelian/later Heideggerian type of Light-as-Truth as "a self-revelation of the psychic background"--given that "God is Light," "psychic background" then includes the "higher unconscious" or Self-Realization potential of humankind--with the Energy of Spirit as the alchemical agent driving qualitative "phase change." This is Plato's "noetic" phase...and what Hegel might term "the end of history" or the "Second Coming" as a kind of rising "subjective" and "objective" harmonic convergence of Spirit. This Hegelian, possibly transmogrified, notion of Christian eschatology is more evident in reductionist Left Hegelian (including Marx) usage.

Related: "Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization;" "A Philosophy of Universality;" "God at the Speed of Light."

It does make sense. It kind of is the same thing as "free will" or "freedom of choice". Some people spend hours debating if "free will" or true "freedom" actually exists because it seems like certain things in life aren't a choice. I can make the choice to go to work. The outcome is I get a paycheck. I can make the choice to skip work and stay home. The most likely outcome is that I would be fired. Every choice we make has some kind of outcome.

Most of the time, the outcome would be normal. But, there are those few times when you can look back and say "If I would have just waited a little longer, I wouldn't have been hit by that other car because I wouldn't have been in that intersection at the right time."

Basically, every choice does have an affect or an outcome. BUT, it usually won't be a drastic one.

While you are on this topic, try watching the movie Final Destination if you haven't seen it before. There are several in the series of movies. Start with the first one.