I dont know which of the following questions make sense for me:
(Free style question)
1) if everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?
BUT
(From linguistic perspective)
2) If “anything is possible”, then the idea that “something-is-impossible” is impossible. Because if anything is possible, then nothing is impossible.
If one thing becomes impossible, and that's the idea that “something is impossible.
Literal argument in the question will only lead to inherently contradictory, meaning one answer will always contradict one part of the question.
OR
(From science point of view, we should rewrite the question)
3) What Is Scientifically Impossible?
I Googled found one of these
"'Impossible' is an abstraction that only has meaning subjectively. Science is about what is, not what might or might not be. 'Impossible' represents the desire to do something outside of reality. As a result, it is impossible for science to prove or disprove anything such as the existence of gods."
Which one makes more sense for you?