I've just received an email informing me of ks-rahul's test post, which brought Richard's reply of nine years ago to my attention for the first time. Apologies for the delay in response, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't alerted at the time.
Richard wrote: "just because a state of affairs is logically possible doesn't tell you whether it is in fact the case."
Which was my point precisely.
It doesn't tell you that it isn't the case, so what evidence is being used to back up the claim that it isn't the case?