Table of Contents

Eternal Conscious Torment is the true Protestant Hell

Assumptions

Definitions

Eternal Conscious Torment: the belief that Hell involves humans suffering in absolute torment, fully conscious and aware of that torment, from the moment they enter and for all of eternity.

Reasoning

∴ Eternal Conscious Torment is the true Protestant Hell

Reasoning

∴ Eternal Conscious Torment is the true Protestant Hell 

  * [[xThe Old Testament is against Eternal Conscious Torment]]
  * [[Intertestamental Jews supported Eternal Conscious Torment]]
  * [[The New Testament supports Eternal Conscious Torment]]

Reasoning

∴ Eternal Conscious Torment is the true Protestant Hell

Notable Supporters

Jonathan Edwards (theologian) in Eternity of Hell Torments

Counter-Statement

xEternal Conscious Torment is the true Protestant Hell

Talk

Interestingly, a lot of arguments against Hell are actually against the eternality of Hell–an argument that is (mostly) unique to ECT: thus, instead of putting them as a rebuttal to Hell itself, it is best that they are moved here (users, even submitters, will find things like this and move them themselves. On the other thread, “Hell exists,” Hell would simply be defined as something like “a place after death for at least some people to be damned to by some Being or Force.” -Loyal

It would be helpful to refine which exact positions Edwards supports by putting it under the reasoning, such as 

===== Reasoning =====

  * [[foo]]
  * If the above is true, [[]]
∴ [[]]
==== Notable Supporters ====
[[wp>Jonathan Edwards (theologian)]] in [[http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/Eternity.html|Eternity of Hell Torments]]

===== Reasoning =====

-Loyal

1)
Devnote: A good system would automatically recognize this and add the more formal reprhasing, “If something is the best possible Hell, it will have all of these goods.” This aids in clearing up subsequent argumentation, as we can see later in this argument structure.
2)
Devnote: For syncing an argument like this, it could be suggested to sync it with a meta-argument, “If something is the best possible x, it is the most plausible x.” Arguments like these often come down to definition: as in, the definition of “best” here (which would be in the hover-text) directly coincides with the idea of being the most plausible, not with the idea of being the most pleasant.
3)
Devnote: A really good system would recognize that this argument flows best in logic when paired with the argument two above it (“These goods are necessary for the best possible Hell”), especially after rephrasing it. So, a really good system would suggest to automatically move this argument up one position for clarity. The order of the arguments is not something I explain much in the Notes page, but is something I hope every user will be able to pick up on/learn.