It was assumed that God's existence must be validly inferred from generally acceptable premises.
If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury's definition of a paradox as "an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises" (1995, 1).
So if both D1 and D2 are valid and based on acceptable premises (other than Purity-F), then D1 and D2 together establish that if Purity-F is true and the one is, then the one has contradictory properties.
So if both D5 and D6 are valid and based on acceptable premises, then D5 and D6 together establish that if the one is not, then the one has contradictory properties.
Anyone arguing in this manner will, in order to be successful, have to ask for premises which the interlocutor is liable to accept, and the best way to be successful at that is to have an inventory of acceptable premises, i.e., premises that are in fact acceptable to people of different types.
As examples, Mexicans as rapists and management as a catch-all solution were suddenly acceptable premises.
The dictionary says a paradox is this: "a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory". And so "forever love" is paradoxical, because no one is a soothsayer.
Whereas it seems that all premises are acceptable, because the first premise is true and one grain does not make a difference to a collection of grains being a heap or not, the conclusion is, of course, unacceptable.
For example, see how what may seem to be a perfectly acceptable (but inaccurate) premise, like "I need money to survive", can be fraught with illusion, from the beginning; you never had a chance to find any truth -- you were on a deceptive path the whole time.
Not all accept that premise.
