A relation contrary to ordinary experience need not be impossible by pure logic. Reason may allow a conceivable scenario while familiar facts or the context exclude that reading in the actual utterance.
In “أَنْبَتَ الرَّبِيعُ الْبَقْلَ” (spring made the herbage grow), spring is naturally associated with growth, but not thereby an independent, deliberate creator of it. The speaker's assumptions, context and the known chain of causes matter when identifying the intended attribution.
Logical impossibility, unusualness in ordinary practice, and a contextual indication are not interchangeable names. They provide different kinds of evidence.