Iron Chariots Wiki:LayoutApologetics

A very brief description of the argument goes here.

Background information
A more in depth description of the argument goes on this section of the page. What is the argument? Where did it originate? When is the first documented case of the argument being used? Who have been its major proponents? Is this argument still being used today, or is it an argument that has made AiG's list of arguments theists shouldn't use?

Joe Blogs version
The first version of the argument may be in the form of a quote from a famous apologist or proponent of the particular argument.

Joe Blogs in Joe's autobiography c.2009 "This is obviously where the body of the quote would go. It would more or less be a copy paste from the source material. For the purposes of achedemic deconstructions most quotes like this should be covered by fair use copy right, but don't make a habit of copying entire pages of information."

Complete Syllogism
This version of the argument may be in the form of an in depth or expanded syllogism which more or less covers all the basic premises, logical steps and conclusions. Every apologetic argument page should contain a syllogistic version of the argument. This serves a two fold purpose. a) it lays the argument out in a clear premise manner that can be followed step by step. This is often


 * p1. First premise
 * p2. Second premise
 * a. Second premise expanded point one
 * b. Second premise expanded point two
 * p3. Third premise
 * a. Third premise expanded point one
 * b. Third premise expanded point two
 * p4. Forth premise
 * p5. Fifth premise
 * a. Fifth premise expanded one
 * b. Fifth premise expanded two
 * c. Fifth premise expanded three
 * c1. First conclusion
 * c2. Second conclusion
 * a. Additional notes about second conclusion
 * b. More additional notes about second conclusion

Simplified Syllogism
This version of the argument may be in the form of a simplified plain English of the first syllogism. There are often many versions of an argument, differing in both the number of steps and complexity of those steps, but most of them can be broken down to 2–3 premises and a conclusion which adequately covers the core argument.


 * p1. First premise
 * p2. Second premise
 * p3. Third premise
 * c1. Conclusion

False premise p2.b: Unproven assertion
This counter argument p2.b(version 2) may be an unproven assertion. For example, a statement about God's character that has no evidence to back it up, or any way of cross-checking. The details of why it is an unproven assertion should be laid out in depth in this section. It is probably also worth mentioning that it would be best for clarity and organization sake to have the counter arguments running in the same step-by-step order as the actual syllogism.

Straw man fallacy p3: Evolution
This counter argument p3.(version 3/simplified version) may be a premise that is just completely wrong and in complete conflict with our current understanding of science. Such as a Ray Comfort statement that males and females had to somehow asexually evolve perfectly side by side before they developed the ability to sexually reproduce. The details of why this premise is incorrect should be laid out in depth in this section. Facts, figures, reasons, references, etc.

Fallacy of reification p4: Real apples
This logical flaw may be a case of fallacy of reification. For example, p4 may state that the apple in my hand is conceptual because the apple in my head is conceptual. Although it is in one of the premises, it is more a problem of logical validity rather than soundness.

Special pleading: What caused God?
This flaw may be a case of special pleading. Perhaps the conclusion is in conflict with one of the premises. Such as the conclusion of the first cause argument that God has no first cause, despite the first premise being that everything has a cause.

Other counter arguments

 * Some arguments for God have a single fairly blatant error, and are fairly simple to dismiss.
 * Others such as the [Transcendental argument#CARM.Org Version |TAG argument] are rather complicated and fractally flawed.
 * More complicated arguments may have many errors, not all of which [Transcendental argument#Other Counter-arguments |justify having their own section].
 * Those additional counter claims should be placed in this section

Additional notes
This is where additional notes on the argument go. This may include something that may completely negate the argument but on a slightly higher meta level isn't really related to the syllogism, or perhaps some additional information related to but separate from the logical validity and soundness of the argument itself.

Reference

 * [Wikipedia:main article] - This is may be an article about the subject.
 * [Wikipedia:Peripheral reference] - This is may be an article about a subject related to the argument.