User Tools

Site Tools


Sidebar

Sample statement

Assumptions

(Don't confuse these with premises. A premise is something necessary for the argument. An assumption is something necessary to even hold the conversation. For example, if you're wanting to argue with someone about whether tacos are the best Mexican food, something like “food exists” and “the world exists” would be obvious assumptions; without them, you can't even talk about what the best Mexican food is. “Tacos are the least spicy food” is a premise.)

(Some assumptions are in just about every argument by necessity. These can be grouped together into standard sets as the users of this site notice common assumptions that are necessarily repeated over and over. One such “set” is the first assumption below.)

Argument

∴ sample statement is true

(Arguments are always represented as statements that can be their own point of debate (such as “grass is green” or “God is evil”) or as conditional statements (such as “If God is good, He would not commit evil.”); all of these can become their own points of discussion. If you want to defend why any of these are true, go to that page and make a defense there.

A key rule in constructing an argument is to make it in as few arguments as possible: strip away everything unnecessary. If it becomes long, condense some of the points into one and further explain the argument in that point's page.

While the current formulation of this website cannot do it well (Though, if you're a web developer and want to change that, contact us!), it is a good idea to survey if statements you make have already been made before elsewhere on the site.

The concluding statement is always the same: “[the statement]” or (if it needs it) “[the statement] is true”

The penultimate premise is always the same: “if the above is true, then [the statement]” or “if the above is true, then [the statement] is true” This allows every argument to be critiqued for its logic instead of the premises themselves.)

Definitions

(This is where you explain the words used in the statement in order to be as clear as possible. Words can mean completely different things in different contexts, and an argument can rise or fall on its definitions.

Definitions of a premise in an argument belong on the personal page of the premise itself.)

Analogies

(Analogies do not count as the evidence itself; they are simply there to help one understand the argument)

Notable Defenders of this Position

(Please cite in full author, Chicago-style bibliography format)

Counter-Argument

It is not that sample statement is true

(Counter-arguments are always the statement itself preceeded by “It is not that”)

(Important: counter-arguments do not refute any of the premises or the logic of the argument itself. Instead, they present a completely different argument which, if true, means that the statement here must be false (regardless of the arguments). In philosophy, this is called a Modus Tollens.)

Talk

Like the talk page of a Wiki article, this is a section not to debate the statement, but to discuss ways of improving the page. It may also be used to discuss whether the analogies appropriately or helpfully/unhelpfully reflect the statement and ways they can be improved.

old revision restored (2025/11/03 23:24)
eternal_conscious_torment_is_the_true_protestant_hell

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

Reasoning

Reasoning

Notable Supporters

Counter-Statement

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.
eternal_conscious_torment_is_the_true_protestant_hell.txt · Last modified: 2025/12/20 06:21 by 216.73.216.181