Oh dear. Isn’t that obvious, from the discussion?
Premise: God is necessary
Premise: something is contingent if we can imagine its not existence
Fact: it is very easy to imagine the not existence of God, all atheists do that
Conclusion: God is contingent
Conclusion: God is necessary and contingent at the same time. Contradiction with premise! Violation of excluded third!
Conclusion: God cannot exist
so, this are the premises of the claimant, the first is from me, and the conclusions follow from simple logic, and your old excluded middle friend. Well, simple for most of us, at least.
and, as any proof, it is valid if
1) the premises hold
2) the conclusion is not a non sequitur
in this case it is not a non sequitur, ergo, if God exists, some of the premises are false.
i am not holding my breath that you see it, given the cognitive dissonance that reductio ad absurdum gives you, but here is your chance to prove that God exists, by understanding It.
joking of course.
ciao
- viole