The claim that the imaginary nature's absence is 'eternal' presupposes a permanently subsisting substrate in which that absence obtains, which is itself an imaginary hypostatization.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Eternal(Maimonides' argument linking eternity to necessity): Existing without a beginning in time; that which has always existed and, per the operative premise, must exist necessarily
Hypostatization(Critique of aesthetic realism by literary historians): The treatment of an abstract term such as 'Renaissance' as a real, subsistent entity, which aesthetic nominalists reject on the grounds that it promotes false identity between similar empirical features.
Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted): Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
Substrate(as the underlying physical foundation being discussed): The physical stuff or material that something is made of or runs on; in this case, the brain as the physical basis for mental states.

Based on where you are in your exploration