Why shouldn't I assume that perfect existence can not include the cessation of existence? It seems far more reasonable to assume perfect existence would be just perfect, no reason to cease. Again if you have a reason that perfect existence should cease, please explain it, otherwise I'm safe to assume you're wrong.
Changing your tune again?
Previously you stated:
I would consider assumptions that are not based on honest objective observation are false assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions I never want to make.
Of course, you mean only the assumptions that are made by your opponents, don't you?
Because now and here, you claim that you can make a "safe" assumption - not by basing it on honest objective observations, but on not having been shown a reason to assume otherwise.
But consider: it
seems far more reasonable to assume that perfect existence would not exclude the cessation of this existence. And if you don't have a reason that perfect existence should
not cease, I am safe to assume that you are wrong and I am right. Following your current "logic" of course.
Say, do you really not see how much you are contradicting your own claims, just so that you don't have to admit an error?
If you go back and read our conversation, this is the very first contradiction that you made and I pointed it out. You failed to address this contradiction in a way that made sense, thus giving me no reason to think your right in your reasoning. Now after that first contradiction that you made, we have created this mess of assumptions and who assumed what and why.
There is no contradiction.
I called you out for your contradictions, because I was able to show where you first said one thing, then a contradicting thing, then something else... you keep doing it.
I havn't said anything here that contradicted another of my statements. The contradiction you perceive comes from your own views, not mine.
So the "very first contradiction" I made is that I contradict
you. Well, that is something that can be safely assumed.
The only safe assumption I've made, was that an atheist would bring God into the conversation first and I was right to assume that because it did happen. Now in order to learn why, I must ask why, but if an answer isn't given, then I'm safe to assume someone is avoiding the honest answer.
You made another "safe assumption" just now in this thread... that, as long as I cannot disprove you, you are correct? When are you going to back that up with honest objective observations?`
Then, this "only safe assumption" you made wasn't that impressive. Debating as the sole Christian in a thread about perfection with atheists... the chance that an atheist would bring up God would be rather high. No big feat here... and even then it took over 60 posts until your trap caught something.
And finally: you got your answer. If you still claim that "an answer isn't given", you will have lost even the last remains of honesty.