If Yahweh/Jehovah/Lord/God created everything ...

If you can imagine a greater being, then the one you were imagining prior was not the greatest being you could imagine. While it's true that you can't imagine something that doesn't exist, I can't necessarily agree that something doesn't exist simply because it can't be imagined.

Something writers do it all the time, surely.

Mr Pickwick from The Pickwick Papers. Did he ever exist?

In connection with this it might be noted that, just earlier, you were telling us how logical it is to imagine a maximal omnipotent god which can do the impossible, a category which by way of example would include a four-sided triangle. If you can imagine that, by your own rule of thumb what would do you think one would look like and where does it exist?

But perhaps here you mean "you can't imagine something that doesn't exist for you", conflating the logic of 'must be apprehended to be imagined in the first place', with mere fact of non-existence precluding consideration, which are not the same things at all. It is true that one must consider something to imagine it - but even then in theory something may 'exist' as merely a non-determinative, discrete noun, extracted out of an infinity of unknown things with no other attributes other than any potential ones that could later come along or not. That is, I can think of Shdhee, as something separate I make out from everything else. without necessarily settling on what it might be, or not be - just like you cannot describe a four sided triangle to me ... something which does not exist for either of us.

It was you who said "it does seem illogical to me to presume that there's something an omnipotent entity can't do.", right? When I then pointed out the standard line against a logically incoherent deity? That one can imagine the impossible but that the impossible excludes that which can be done?



Really? The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (also known as The Pickwick Papers) was Charles Dickens' first novel.




Something can not exist, such as a fictional character and yet include characteristics taken from the world. So here you are just being disingenuous - not least since this was not a distinction you made previously. Unless you here suggest that something can be said to exist, even if we only recognize of what it would consist. and not the overall likelihood of its being. On this basis then I can imagine that you have three heads and so exist like that. It is this sort of thing we find in the credulity of religious believers


Since I did not use the word 'indoctrination' but you have put the word in speech marks, this is a straw man.

Imagination is only limited by things we can apprehend, and the existence or not of things imagined is entirely irrelevant. One might say that there are some things we cannot imagine because we do not have the capacity, experience, or words to capture the moment or the feeling. But even then, well, we can just imagine we do. In fact for every argument against a proposed end extent of the imagination, this answer pertains. 

Yes you do need to make yourself clearer and less contradictory. For at first you clearly said that, you thought it 'illogical to think of an Omnipotent God which cannot do some things', something which a less charitable person might think you said but then discovered CS Lewis thought such an idea was, essentially, theological nonsense.




Indeed; but here all you are saying that the characteristics exist, not that the personage of Pickwick does on the same basis. If you mean to say that existence is a characteristic like red hair and that, moreover existence is an essential property of anything then, in the words of Kant who has better arguments against the idea than I do, you ought to know that existence is not a predicate.




As I mentioned before the shortcut to this objection is, simply I can still imagine I can do all or any of this. See how it works? And since it appears you missed it here is what I said just a while ago "perhaps here you mean "you can't imagine something that doesn't exist for you", conflating the logic of 'must be apprehended [by one] to be imagined in the first place', with mere fact of non-existence precluding consideration, which are not the same things at all. It is true that one must consider something to imagine it - but even then in theory something may 'exist' as merely a non-determinative, discrete noun, extracted out of an infinity of unknown things with no other attributes other than any potential ones that could later come along or not. "




And sometimes they do. And ... condescension noted.



Because as said above, a moment's thought shows that there is clearly no reason one can't imagine one can imagine anything. No one says what one can imagine has to be objectively right, accurate or even acceptable to some other thinker. And you are still, conveniently, conflating 'existence' with 'anything one is aware of' or 'imagination' with 'knowledge', come to that. I am not aware of what Uhsnner56732 is, but I am thinking of it right now as an identifying noun with no other knowledge of it other than I have no knowledge of it as what it is. And yet I have just thought it into being. I could then imagine it with things of which I have no idea or awareness, like Batsononian Dithrops. But perhaps you can tell me of anything which I can't just imagine I can imagine, even that which I am no knowledge of?

God can do anything that doesn’t contradict His nature.

Let me make it easier for you.

You say that I cannot imagine anything that does not exist in the real world (by which I think you mean 'has characteristics I am familiar with').

I then say that I am imagining an 'X' which does not exist and has no characteristics I am previously aware of. It may well be impossible for it to exist, but since I am saying it does not from the outset being purely imaginary, I do not have to show it is logically coherent.

In any case say you still then ask me a series of questions about X such as 'does it wear a hat?' or 'does it have a colour' (there is no need 'does it exist?' of the imaginary in a general sense) on and on, all of which are known characteristics of items in the reality we know of. To all your questions I answer "no".

Eventually and probably exasperated, what do you say at the end of the long interrogation? It cannot be that "it does not exist, and so you must be imagining it", or the tautological "you only imagine you imagine it", for that would be a QED. It cannot be that I am not imagining it, since I have described a something I imagine, if only in general terms (let alone that only I can say what I can imagine and what I don't). I am quite able to imagine something defined by that which it is not, a process familiar elsewhere in Apophatic theology en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology  for instance. I'd suggest that you are left with postulating what can be 'properly imagined'  -which perilously approaches Scotsman territory.

I hope that helps.

I think you mean by "nothing" the thinking of anything you accept as possible, as you say that they are still imagining. QED. As I said before, another way of putting this is that they are 'just imagining' that they can imagine something which you argue they can't 'really' (assuming it was possible for one to know for sure exactly what it is they think they have in mind in the first place, as when a blind person tells you they can think of 'green'.) But this still leaves them imagining; imagination as I have mentioned before is not necessarily contingent on representing something focused, true, accurate, or even possible, as well as being in potential infinitely regressive. That is it might be 'nothing' to you but a 'something' to the imaginer. Thank you for playing.

And the reason why I can't imagine them doing this is....

But this is the problem in a nutshell; you appear to limit imagination to a land of (your own) reality. But thank you for the invitation to imagine what I want. It sort of proves my point again, does it not?