Demonstrating the Existence of Purgatory

P1: The soul of a Christian cannot enter into paradise without first being cleansed of it's sinful attachments.
P2: The cleansing process begins during the Christian's earthly life, but is not orinarily completed before or upon his death.
C1: Therefore, in order for an unclean soul to be permitted into paradise, it's cleansing must continue after his death.
C2: Thus his soul is necessarily in a state of postmortem cleansing if he has died and is bound for paradise, provided that his soul is not already clean.
P3: For a soul to be in a state of postmortem cleansing is necessarily for it to be in a state of postmortum purification.
P4: But for a soul to be in a state of postmortum purification is just what it is for a soul to be in Purgatory.
C3: Therefore Purgatory exists.
I'm aware the argument presupposes the existence of paradise and the soul, these are justified presups because the argument is intended to be engaged by Christians with Christian priors.

It would be way more interesting of a topic, if you could talk like a regular human :D

The argument wouldn't be as thorough or precise if it were written informally, it wouldn't even be a demonstration at that point.

tl;dr, no, he won't pull the stick out of there.

Just FYI the second premise is the one you'll want to attack.

to be or not to be

Ok so this is a kind of script that you can only present in a written way? I doubt people debating each other would talk like this, unless the starter is far more nerdy than the one he's debating, but maybe just me.

No it's a formalized argument that makes explicit every relevant step towards the conclusion so that the position is clear.

You need a p3 before C1 that can astablish that clensing must come after death and can not be compleated in some other way e.g. instently clensed by god or removed by some other mekinisum or requirment. I would also add that and you would know this p1 and p2 aren't like agreed apon by christians generaly so you need to do quite a bit of work I would like to see your actual arguements for all of these parts of the arguement. Also you haven't said weather or not you even take this position or not witch you don't have to answer but

P1 is uncontroversial. P2 already does the work that you want a p3 to do.

No it doesn't you didn't astablish that your mekinisum to clense people is the only viable one, and p1 I should say the intalements of what that means are controvershal.

I didn't make any assertions about what the cleansing process entails. I just said it occurs.

C1 asserts that clensing must happen after death, this means that just because you didn't say what the intailments are that makes your arguement nutrol to all explanations of how that looks like. You need to be able to astablish that the mekinisum requires clensing after death and you need to be able to rule out alternitive posabilities

No that's entirely irrelevant.

p1 and p2 don't just come out of cristian priers in it of itself. You haven't astablished the arguements assersions and christian beleafe doesn't fix that on its own also p2 allows for exepsions that c1 doesn't allow for why p2 have exclutions that c1 doesn't?

So are you skeptical of the truth of the premises and conclusions or the logic of the argument itself?

The logic, I don't know the topic super well just trying to understand and praud at it as it were.

Yeah so the logic is valid, premises 1-2 entail conclusions 1 and 2.

Why does p2 say not ordinaraly but C1 uses the word must as a hard requirement?

Because there are exceptions to the general rule that the purification of the soul is not completed before or upon death. But since no unclean souls can enter paradise any person who dies with one needs further purification.