CreateDebate


Debate Info

74
62
agree disagree
Debate Score:136
Arguments:73
Total Votes:245
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 agree (34)
 
 disagree (31)

Debate Creator

atypican(4874) pic



Just because a thing may only exist in the imagination......

.....doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all.

agree

Side Score: 74
VS.

disagree

Side Score: 62
2 points

Imaginary ideas exist

Let's consider the interesting case where a thing only exists in the imagination. It should be rather obvious that this thing still exists. Any retort leads to a contradiction. How can something exist in the imagination while not exist? Existence in one particular sense implies existence. How could it possibly be otherwise?

Imaginary ideas can have causal influence on the world

So a thing that exists only the in the imagination still does exist. That's obvious. Another question that might be interesting is whether a thing that exists only the imagination necessarilly doesn't have any causal influence on the world outside the imagination. This question should be answered in the negative, i.e. if an idea only exists in the imagination, it can still have an influence on the world outside the imagination. This should be obvious in relation to the history of Christianity.

So in this sense, imaginary ideas can be just as real as any other thing in this world. God is just as real as any other thing.

Side: agree
2 points

Well, let's take a look at the fictional-reality hypothesis of the Multiverse theory.

See the link below.

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia Article regarding the idea of a Multiverse. (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: agree
1 point

there are lots of things we imagine. and there are lots of things we haven't yet thought of. that certainly does not mean it doesn't exist.

Side: agree
2 points

Saying that it exists because it can exist in the imagination reduces the word exist to mean nothing. If something can only exist in the imagination, it doesn't exist. Existence should only include reality.

Side: disagree
2 points

By this logic, can't we say that human existence itself is not real? After all, even if everything originates as external sensory impulses, our actual experience of the world exists only within our minds.

I think you're conflating concrete vs. intangible with existing vs. not existing.

I could be wrong though, and I'd love clarification.

Side: agree
1 point

I don't see how you can get that from what I said. I am not saying that things that can be found in the imagination can't be real, I am just that finding it in the imagination doesn't mean it exists. We can use our imagination to think about stuff in the real world. That doesn't reduce the value of the stuff in the real world. I don't quite understand your logic. Did my explanation get in the ballpark?

Side: disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

Saying that it exists because it can exist in the imagination reduces the word exist to mean nothing.

If we can map an activity, (or measure a thing) I think it's fair to assume it exists.

If something can only exist in the imagination, it doesn't exist. Existence should only include reality.

You are thereby implying that thought patterns are non-existent. Why because they occur in brains?

Side: agree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

If we can map an activity, (or measure a thing) I think it's fair to assume it exists.

The premise of the debate is that it can only exist in the imagination which means it can't be measured or mapped.

You are thereby implying that thought patterns are non-existent. Why because they occur in brains?

Basically. Plus, if we include brain waves, the word exists means nothing, like I said.

Side: disagree
1 point

For something to exist, it must manifest in reality. If it only exists in the imagination, then what actually exists is the brain state responsible for the thought, not the thought itself.

Side: disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

If all a thing exists as is a thought pattern, so be it, but it is nonsensical to think thought patterns exist somewhere outside of reality (as if there were such a place)

Side: agree
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

but it is nonsensical to think thought patterns exist somewhere outside of reality

I completely agree, and didn't suggest otherwise.

Side: agree
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

The idea of the thing and the thing itself are distinct (e.g. a cat and the idea of a cat are not interchangeable). Subsequently, that the idea of a thing exists does not mean the thing exists

Side: disagree
Hitler(2364) Disputed
-2 points
1 point

What if I imagine that the Earth doesn't exist? The idea exists in my mind. Shall the scenario exist now?

Side: disagree
Satori(39) Disputed
2 points

Not in our universe. Are you familiar with the multiverse hypothesis?

Side: agree
Paradox44(736) Disputed
1 point

Yes, then that follows that if I imagine that only this universe exists shall that also come into being?

Side: disagree
1 point

it doesn't exist as what you imagined it as being, it only exists as an imagined idea and imagined ideas do exist but what you imagined doesn't exist because its not real.

Side: disagree
-1 points

The minute you define the words "exist" and "mean" then you will know that you are wrong.

Side: disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
0 points

In the context I've used them....

"Exist" may be replaced with "be locatable"

"mean" may be replaced with "justify the idea that"

Dig into semantics with me, (which is kinda my thing) or keep trolling.

Side: agree
-1 points

Just because a "thing" may only exist in the imagination......

.....doesn't mean that "it" doesn't exist at all.

Quotations are my emphasis. The use of "it" I assume refers to the "thing". If so I disagree. The "things" existence and the "thoughts" about it are two separate things. The existence of one thing does not necesitate the existence of the other.

For example memories or learned behavior of a person who existed may persist in the thoughts and habits of future generations as their own memes however these patterns do not cause any existence to the one who passed just that the patterns themselves are existing.

Side: disagree
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

Your first assumption is correct. However, sometimes we have thoughts about thoughts. Your reasoning implies that when we think about thoughts we are thinking of nothing.

Side: agree
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Not at all, it only implies that the existence of one thing is not necessarily dependent on the others existence. This does not rule out the two separate things existing, one existing one not or neither existing at all. There is no necessary connection.

For instance not believing in a new species of fish doesn't mean it doesn't exist any more than believing in such a species causes that species to exist.

Subjective versus objective realities.

Side: agree