It’s flawed logic because you are collapsing the idea that you can imagine it with the idea that it can happen. Whether or not it can happen is unknowable, i.e. can’t be known, which is the point you were refuting.
I gave 2 concrete examples. Are both of those impossible?
> Whether or not it can happen is unknowable, i.e. can’t be known, which is the point you were refuting.
If I play the lottery, it is unknowable whether I will ever win, it can't be known. That doesn't mean I will never win the lottery. The possibility of me winning the lottery is independent of possibility of me knowing whether I'm going to win. Which is kind of the point.
But eventually I might win the lottery, and the unknowable question of whether I will win the lottery will have a concrete answer. So by definition, it was never unknowable to start with!
But you can't know something you've never personally experienced. You're collapsing that which you can experience with that which you can't and assuming that because there are things unknown that are possible to experience they are the same as things that are unknown that you can't experience. That's a very different type of knowing.
It is certainly more accurate to say that one may believe in something to be true, but one can't know.
