Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument.
Alright in the format you are requesting of me:
please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument.
MY RESPONSE TO SYE:
I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion).
I am saying I cannot figure out what the argument is supposed to be. [I can't prove it's not a good argument till I know what the argument is supposed to be, can I?] How do you arrange what's behind the continue button into an argument? How does it run, premises to conclusion?
"The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument (that sequence of words presents no premise and conclusion), but rather the title you have given to an argument.
But what is that argument?
You say it's there on the page behind the continue button. Why then not set it out for us as premise(s) and conclusion?
Why would you refuse this very simple request??