Evidence for atheism

[Jackalope]

God -is- the mt. That's all we've been given to consider. Imagining some "other-q" is to imagine another argument, not under consideration. The q in question is dependant upon p - as per their claim.

Yes, it is. But *in this argument form* not-p tells you precisely nothing, save that the proponent hasn't made his case. You can conclude his argument is bad and perhaps that he's bad at propositional logic, but not that his conclusion is false. Fallacious, unsound arguments are not a tool for discovering what's true.

At best, you can conclude that the argument doesn't establish the conclusion as necessarily true.