Sye – it’s the final countdown
Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God. You folks are going on and on about the format, why not offer your refutation?
ANSWER: We did. One way to show you have no proof (a “proof” establishing something as true beyond reasonable doubt) is to show (1) is false. But that is not the only way (do you agree?). Another would be to show that (1) is contentious and unargued for, which it appears to be.
You say your (1) is not unargued for – there is an argument for it: “impossibility of the contrary”.
You refuse to say what the argument is, though (i.e. you refuse to spell it out as premises and conclusion). Instead, you do say WE must “prove ‘impossibility of the contrary’ is NOT an argument.
Well we have already proved that – an argument involves premises and conclusion. This doesn’t. Here’s the proof:
1. An argument contains premise(s) and conclusion
2. ‘impossibility of the contrary’ does not contain premises and conclusion
Therefore: ‘impossibility of the contrary’ is not a proof.
Rather ‘impossibility of the contrary’ seems to be the title you give some as yet unspecified argument.
Now, identify that argument. Supply the premises and conclusion to support your first premise that 1. God is the necessary precondition for logic. Or we are left with no choice but to conclude you have none.
And thus no proof.
It really is put up or shut up time.