Evidence that God exists

[Cleanthes]

I don't think this analogy works

4: God's blue eyes either exist or don't exist (from 2,3)

This is a weaker claim than the original, which claims that God's existence is either necessary or impossible. God's blue eyes are either necessary, impossible, or contingent. So when we get to steps 7 and 8:

7: God's blue eyes is not logically impossible (from 5,6)

8: God's blue eyes is necessary (from 4,7)

The inference here is invalid, since God's blue eyes (if not impossible) are still either contingent or necessary. So on this parody of the argument, the inference from 7 to 8 is invalid because the blue eyes could either be contingent or necessary, once impossibility has been eliminated.

On the original argument, the inference is valid, because the only options available regarding God's existence are impossibility or necessity.

Cleanthes