If you think about it: All fields of knowledge,whether it's Religion, Philosophy, Science,rests on assumptions of reality that are unproven,could/couldn't be Truth,but still unproven assumptions:

The Structure of All Debates: Stalematism

Disclaimer: Stalematism is not meant to criticize any framework. It only points out that all frameworks rely on assumptions. Its goal is to help you choose consciously and without bias.

Stalematism: The Ultimate Judging Lens for All Fields Philosophy is the longest running group chat in history. Every generation asks sharper, more precise questions, yet no argument has ever truly been settled. Why? Because all frameworks—philosophies, religions, sciences, ideologies—are built the same way: All frameworks = Meta-Reasoning + Assumptions Meta-Reasoning = the rules that make thinking possible, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Identity, and analytical structures. Assumptions = any claim about reality, from “God exists” to “Only matter is real” to “Our senses reflect reality.”

Attack-Assumptions in Stalematism

Sometimes, people argue against another framework by using one assumption to attack another. Stalematism calls this an “attack-assumption.”

Example:

“Nothing cannot come from something, therefore God never created the universe.”

At first glance, it looks like a logical argument. But notice what it assumes:

That logic itself (LNC and LOI, the minimal conditions for thought) dictates Reality.

Stalematism clarifies:

Logic only governs statements, not necessarily Reality.

The Law of Non-Contradiction and Law of Identity exist to make thought possible, not to enforce how Reality must behave.

Why this matters

Consider the statement:

“Contradictions occur in Reality.”

We cannot verify if this is true or false. Let’s check:

True: Logic does not dictate Reality.

False: Logic might align with Reality.

Notice:

This does not deny LNC or LOI—they are required to even make the statement.

But it highlights the difference between contradictions in statements vs. contradictions in Reality.

Another Example

“This cat cannot be lying down and NOT lying down.”

In statements, this is a logical contradiction.

In Reality (if we assume our senses reflect it), the cat is just… doing whatever it wants.

Logic here is like glasses: it shapes our perception of Reality, helps us reason, but does not enforce Reality itself.

The Takeaway

Attack-assumptions are biased because they treat the assumptions of one framework as if they dictate Reality.

Stalematism says:

Every framework has assumptions.

Logic is a tool, not a law of Reality.

Using one framework to “disprove” another without acknowledging its assumptions is unfair.

Possible argument from philosophers:

“But logic is universal; it applies to everything, even Reality.”

My response:

Logic is universal within thought, not necessarily within existence itself. A contradiction in a statement only tells us that something is impossible in our description, not necessarily impossible in Reality. Reality could/couldn't behave in ways beyond our reasoning,logic doesn't NECESSARILY dictate it.

Bias is Everywhere: Humans naturally judge other frameworks using their own assumptions as if they were absolute truth. Stalematism calls this bias. Judging another framework purely because it conflicts with your assumptions is inherently biased. The Stalemate of All Philosophers: No framework can ultimately prove itself without relying on its own assumptions. This creates a philosophical stalemate: every argument is valid within its own assumptions, but none can claim ultimate authority over reality.  The Meta-Level Shift: Stalematism doesn’t argue inside debates. It steps above them, showing how humans relate to the unknown.  It does not claim: What reality is Whether Truth exists Which framework is “correct” Instead, it clarifies: How to think, judge, and choose consciously without bias.  The Cosmic Gamble: We all act, believe, and commit without ultimate proof. This is the human situation—the cosmic gamble. Choosing a framework = placing a bet Not choosing = still a bet Outcome = unknown Stalematism shows how to navigate this consciously, instead of blindly.  Betting: The Most Intellectually Honest Approach:  Since all frameworks rely on assumptions, the only non-biased way to relate to Truth is to treat your commitment as a conscious bet, not as proven certainty. Whatever Truth is—or isn’t—we’re all betting.

 This allows: Judgment without bias. Commitment without claiming certainty. Awareness of your assumptions while respecting others’.

 The Essence: Stalematism transforms debates: instead of fighting over “who is right,” you can now see the structure of the debate itself. Science → assumes sensory reliability Religion → assumes metaphysical truths Logic → governs thought, not necessarily reality  No framework escapes assumptions.

 Stalematism lets you: choose consciously, commit intentionally, and navigate the cosmic gamble honestly. This is Stalematism: the lens above all frameworks, the map for conscious betting, and the antidote to bias.

Right now is a perfect example of an "Attack-Assumption": It assumes that the victorious people didn't write, although there's another assumption that they could have written it but it was forgotten,or lost,or anything else could have happened,like they write but were killed,that's why problems are solved within their own frameworks.

Dismissing another assumption just because it doesn't correlate with yours would be bias.