CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You cannot imagine God; He exists independently of your imagination. If you imagine a thing which you might call God, it is not God because God exists independently of your imagination. When you stop imagining a thing you call "God", and forget about it and imagine something like having an ice cream cone on a hot summer day, God does not cease to exist, only your imagination has changed, God does not change and the thing you imagined and called "God: was only your imagination and was not God.
Whatever you are imagining, it is only your imagination...even if you call your imagination "God".
Assuming the terms "unimaginable" and "incomprehensible" to be equivalent, most certainly: a couple great examples are the concepts of "infinity" (for which we have no analogue) and "i", which is equivalent to the square root of negative one (√-1). As such things are incomprehensible, they are therefore unimaginable, and thus unimaginable concepts are indeed capable of existing.
Sure, dictionaries do make "comprehensible" a synonym to "imaginable", but I'm referring to the word by itself, say for example, someone asks me to imagine a monster, I can "imagine" a picture of it, pictures of it, dialogues for it and anything that my creative part of my brain lets me do with the word "monster".
comprehend is to understand a specific idea, while imagination let's you take in things from the world and do anything with it in your mind, rational or irrational.
how a grape tastes and the sound of a train going by
Of course I can, I can imagine the difference as they use two different senses of my body.. that's technically the difference..
a triangle with less than three sides
two sides of a triangle, can be a part of a triangle with three sides, but appear two sided when two of its sides are extremely long and i see only a part of the picture of the triangle, so to me, I am looking at a triangle, but I see only two sides..
If an argument that irrefutably proves that there are some things that cannot be imagined, can itself be imagined, then you have lost the debate. If such an argument cannot be imagined, you have still lost the debate. :)
what cannot be imagined by you need not be what cannot be imagined by another, to you, those things are unimaginable, to me, I can, so to me, technically, it is imaginable, and that's why the debate was created in the first place. :)
If ANYONE can imagine such an argument (one that irrefutably proves that some things are unimagineable), your position (that anything is imaginable) fails. If NO ONE can, your position still fails... sorry bud :)
FYI: Saying that you MIGHT not be able imagine this or that is different than saying something is unimaginable
taking a side which says "yes" for the question "can anything be "unimaginable"? " and then telling that I MIGHT not be able to imagine something for sure implies you do think things are "unimaginable".
Question: If your aim is to imagine a car and images of dinosaurs are all that pop into your head have you succeeded?
Of course not, but I can have a dinosaur in a car, or a car speeding away from a dinosaur..
hmm three negations in a row? is that what it is? if so, that's not the case here at all, for I am disputing against your arguments from the side of "yes" unimaginable things do exist.. if not, please explain what you meant there...
So would you agree that human "imagination" always involves creating visualizations in the mind and that this is why the term is based on the word "image" ?
So would you agree that human "imagination" always involves creating visualizations in the mind and that this is why the term is based on the word "image" ?
That's exactly what I initially came up with, creating this debate, to use the creative side of my brain to "imagine", I can imagine almost anything, i.e, "visualize" in some sense, so technically, even if we can't think of something, I can "imagine" the word by itself, or anything related to that, successfully "imagining" what I intended to. But, if we were to see things only from a rational p.o.v , we would try and "comprehend" a particular idea.. but the idea of imagining something "unimaginable" fails the creative perspective too.. since as I make that statement of "I imagined an unimaginable thing", irrespective of what I actually "imagined", I am making a contradictory statement...
You can conjure an image in your mind, that represents (to you) something, even a sound, smell, taste, a proposition...nothing is off limits, nothing one might suppose is unimagineable.
What argument to the contrary was most convincing?
You can conjure an image in your mind, that represents (to you) something, even a sound, smell, taste, a proposition...nothing is off limits, nothing one might suppose is unimagineable.
What argument to the contrary was most convincing?
while one can actually do what's said, i.e to conjure an image .... but that doesn't allow one to make an argument of imagining something unimaginable..
There are unimaginable things due to our rather weak communication methods. For example, a person blind will never be able to imagine a rainbow, a deaf person won't understand music, etc. However, there is one thing unimaginable across all humans, what happens after death. After millennia of contemplating, the best answer science has is well, nothing, which the human brain simply can't imagine.
A blind person has never seen anything, as they were born blind. Now imagine this. Since they've NEVER seen a starry sky, or a sunny day, they don't know what the sun looks like, what the stars look like, what fire looks like, basically they can't think of what anything that is untouchable looks like.
IF we're talking about just in the natural mind, there is a disorder where people have 4 color-receiving cones in their eyes which makes them able to see A LOT more colors than the average eyes. One woman can see 100 million colors, which is extraordinary. It's called tetrachromacy I believe, research it if you'd like.
In the normal mind, you wouldn't be able to even BEGIN to imagine the colors they see, which means the human brain cannot comprehend those colors, making my answer yes for this question.
Short answer: Yes, because stories with different aspects of them come out all the time, which means people are imagining things which have never been recorded as imagined. Otherwise, colors people with tetrachromacy can see, we cannot imagine.
The eye is the window , the best the blind can do is imagine.
People covered over with roof of the earth can imagine the universe.
I can't blame the pessimistic blind man who doesn't want to exaggerate but be skeptical about his imaginations.
However, his limited imagination won't prevent an extra ordinary entity from being itself or existing.
Blindmen of earth(no windows)
Blindmen of earth made efforts out the roofs to see super~ordinary gigantic stars, planets, etc beyond whatever they could have possibly imagined before.
Even yet, it didn't have a scratch on their pessimistic genes. Their mentality and DNA are indoctrined with blindness. All their approaches are like blindmen just like their logo goes "seeing is believing" which contradicts mine of"believing is seeing".
Just like someone believes his shirt is in the wardrobe and will go straight for it, this is too much for them to imagine... they would have to walk touching the walls , pillars and tables just to reach a shirt in the wardrobe(which they still doubt until they have found it there)
So they say the use systematic processes....hahahaaa....very laughable.
Despite going close to these extra ordinary figures, they still cannot imagine there is a magnificent creature of these things they admire.
To be drawn toward the best of 2 possible concepts is logical, not an intellectual stigma. To reject the better of 2 possibilities is unwise, not intelligent.
To you, existence of something may seem the best for some set of reasons, to me the non existence of that something may seem the best for some set of reasons, again, nobody can conclude.
I thing you can imagine cannot be God as God is God independent of your imagination. The thing you imagine and call "god" is not God who is there if you acknowledge He is God or not.
Unimaginable, hmm tell me anything and I will imagine it. Or just wait for someone to imagine that specific idea you think is unimaginable, as there can be infinite ideas, but for sure, at some point of time, by some person, that specific idea can be imagined.(referring to ideas that haven't been imagined yet) again.
You cannot imagine God, you can think about God....that is if your brain has not shut down completely..but even while you say you are imagining God and He is not real, you are still thinking about God....you are in denial, that's all, and it's in opposition to your own life.
