A nonexistent object is an object that has properties, but does not exist. For example, I can say "Zeus has a beard," and "Zeus does not exist."

But this is nonsensical. When I say "Zeus has a beard," I am saying there is a beard somewhere. But if Zeus does not exist, then neither does the beard - so Zeus does not have a beard. The two statements are fundamentally incompatible.

The solution is that the two statements don't actually refer to the same object. What I really meant was something like "the literary figure named Zeus has a beard" and "the actual god named Zeus doesn't exist." Since the literary figure of Zeus does exist, and the actual god named Zeus doesn't have a beard or any other properties, there is no conflict.

I think that in every case, if you are clear enough about what object you're referring to, you find that nonexistent objects are unintelligible. So I think you can rationally infer that necessarily, for any x, if x has properties, then x exists.

Does this seem reasonable? Does anyone disagree with this?