That is ridiculous.
Try this one:
T1: All unicorns require a horn.
That premise does not asserts these two things:
1. Unicorns exist
2. Horns exist
That, also is ridiculous, unless one uses a crazy definition of "require".
LOL! How's this:
P1. Life requires matter
It then follows that:
1. Life exists
2. Matter exists
We can accept that horns exist without believing that all horns are on unicorns.
Agreed.
Physical effects require physical causes. Yes. But this in no way requires that all physical effects are physical. What about the "physical"? The non-physical exits either way. So we have a duality ladies and gentlemen.P2. Only the physical exists.
Did you just write that?
Your entire modus operandi is making assumptions unstated in the premises!
The same can be said of yours.