I'm not trying to make people mad here. just calling it like I see it. That being said I have a feeling you all won't like where I take this.
Actually, having read it, I'm not really impressed. Your logic has a fatal flaw in it.
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
Irrelevant. If P exists, it does not matter that one can not imagine how it could be so. And if P does not exist, then it does not matter that one can imagine how it could be so. That's why one can't rely on being able to imagine how something might exist, or not being able to imagine how it might exist.
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
Accurate, so far as it goes. But nowhere do you mention or even acknowledge that the converse is also true. If a state of affairs is possible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is true. Furthermore, this illustrates the fatal flaw I mentioned. This logic doesn't tell us a thing about whether P actually exists or not. This is why evidence is so important, and why we can't just rely on logic and philosophy to tell us about the universe.
Keep reading I changed it up a bit
Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how God could be so.
Major premise (unstated): If God, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how God could be so. (or at least how to prove one way or the other)
Conclusion: Not- God
As before, irrelevant.
As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a person lacks FAITH in a state of affairs, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that FAITH is limited. (or absent) Moreover, if no one has yet managed THE FAITH TO SEE how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.
As before, this has a fatal flaw - it doesn't actually tell us whether God really exists or not. Moreover, it cannot tell us that either. It simply talks about someone having 'faith' (in actuality, having imagination)
This is a perfect statement. It can go both ways and clearly demonstrates how it takes faith (here referred to as imagination) to be both an atheist as well as an evolutionist.
No, it is a badly flawed statement, as you are conflating 'faith' with imagination. I can imagine lots of things, but my ability to imagine them doesn't mean I have faith that they really exist.
Your faith is in science.
Incorrect. I have no 'faith' in science. I never have had any and I never will have any. I understand how the scientific process works too well to have 'faith' in it.
Mine is in God. I have personal evidence to build a faith in God.
Which you conveniently can't show to anyone else, meaning it isn't useful in any way, shape, or form except to validate a belief you already hold. You can't even show us that your evidence really exists, rather than it being the product of your own imagination - indeed, your earlier conflation of faith and imagination strongly implies that it is.
You choose to imagine anything but God. This is where we differ. Don't get into this part though. Rather admit, short of introducing you personally to my friend God, you would reject whatever I offer. For some of you a personal introduction would still not be enough.
Incorrect. If you had real, solid evidence that supported your belief, something you could actually share, it would make your argument a lot more convincing. Instead, all you have is flawed logic and personal 'evidence' that doesn't exist for anyone besides you. What you need to understand is that this isn't about competing imaginations. I don't 'imagine' the evidence that shows that science works, so your comparison fails.