Is atheism logical?

[TeddyKGB]

How do you or the scientist's know the empirical evidence supports it? It is ASSUMED as true the empirical evidence supports it. Allow me to explain.

This had better be good. Your premise is crummy-looking.

The observations scientists make in regards to space do not in and of themselves do not speak to us, or come with an inscription as to what happened in the past. In other words, the evidence in and of itself does not talk. We, human beings, conjure up ideas and explanations to explain what we see but to some degree, there is the presence of "guessing."

Let's use gravity as an example. Newton observed an object falling to the ground. To explain this phenomenon, Newton espoused the idea of "gravity." But does an object falling to the ground really demonstrate gravity exists, i.e. demonstrate the human explanation is correct? Well, no. Rather, it is ASSUMED as correct. Gravity is a great explanation as to why objects fall to the ground but it is still assumed the explanation is correct.

"Gravity" is not an explanation for anything. Gravity is the name we give to the observable, repeatable phenomenon of attraction between matter, what we commonly observe as falling.

Scientific theories are not "assumed correct." It is not even clear what that phrase should mean; correctness cannot ultimately be a matter of assumption. Some scientific theories may be more or less correct than others based on well-accepted criteria: how many facts they incorporate, how few additional assumptions they require, whether there exist observations that can falsify them.

Another example is scientists find all of these fossils, buried in the earth, in gradations, descending from complex to less complex.

There is a general trend of increasing complexity, but also considerable variation within narrower time frames.

They also observe a lot of uniformity among different species, both presently walking the earth, and those preceding us, and in an effort to explain this phenomenon, they espouse the idea of evolution. Does this make evolution correct? No, they assume their explanation of the facts are correct.

No. If you do not know how science works, please do not impose your own framework of cobbled-together misunderstandings.

Similarly, with the Big Bang, scientists have all this phenomenon occurring in the universe and in an effort to explain and account for it, they come up with the idea of a "Big Bang."

Yes, that's right. Why all the business about "assuming"?

There is always a gap between the evidence and the human explanation.

Are you certain?

Creationists, and intelligent design advocates, offer an explanation for the diversity we see. Rather than entertain the merits of intelligent design, they espouse some arguments answering your question of, "what is about US which suggests a creator."

The fact is, both evolutionists and creationists/intelligent design advocates are examining the same evidence but taking different interpretations of the evidence. The question is, whose interpretation is right?

I have a strong opinion. The question of which explanation is more scientific, however, is long-settled.

In the end, there is some degree of "faith" in both camps.

That has to be the most equivocated term in the known universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Great....well if you comprehended my argument applies to strong atheists as opposed to weak atheists, then this renders null and void any need for a clarification doesn't it?

No. For all I knew, you genuinely thought your argument applied to all atheists, not just strong atheists.

I never said anything about atheism being a "belief system." In regards to "content of the belief," I was referring to the substance of their reasons as to why they disbelieve.

Ah. Just to clarify (again), it is only strong atheists who disbelieve.
In any case, the absence of supporting evidence for the existance of deities is generally the reason someone is an explicit atheist. If they are an implicit atheist, then it is simply that they haven't encountered the notion of deities before.
Though strong atheists may have other reasons to disbelieve, I don't think weak atheists nonbelieve for any reason other than the fact that it's the logical stance.

Isn't is possible that although the prediction has occurred the idea can still be false?

Of course. That is one of the ideas that underpin science, and is the reason a hypothesis is only ever promoted to the status of a theory. No matter how much evidence supports an explanation, the possibility remains that it is still false. There could be a pasta-based deity that created the world with the appearance of age, Omphalos-style.

But this is irrelevant. I believe the Big Bang occured because the evidence supports it. The evidence raises the probability of the theory being true above all alternatives.

Explanatory power is not evidence for the validity of the explanation.

Correct. But, once again, you have omitted the bit of my post that addresses just this notion:

"Now, I agree that explanatory power itself is not evidence of anything. If it were, Pastafarianism would dominate scientific circles. But it is for this reason that I said "biological diversity is remarkably well explained", rather than simply explained; it is remarkably well explained because of the evidence in favour of it, and because of its high scientific validity."

 

[NotreDame]

This had better be good. Your premise is crummy-looking.

Your reply is crummy-looking for the reasons set forth below.

"Gravity" is not an explanation for anything. Gravity is the name we give to the observable, repeatable phenomenon of attraction between matter, what we commonly observe as falling.

No, this is not correct...gravity is an explanation. On what planet and in which universe does gravity not qualify as an explanation?

Scientific theories are not "assumed correct." It is not even clear what that phrase should mean; correctness cannot ultimately be a matter of assumption. Some scientific theories may be more or less correct than others based on well-accepted criteria: how many facts they incorporate, how few additional assumptions they require, whether there exist observations that can falsify them.

First, a large part of your problem is this "play stupid" facade you erect in discussions. I am not entirely sure how one could reasonably fail to understand the meaning of the phrase "assumed to be correct" but you have evidently accomplished the impossible.

Second, scientific theories, if such a phrase is correct, are assumed to be correct. Why? Well, as a few physicists told me, an object observed falling to the ground does not demonstrate or prove scientific thoughts on why it falls is "correct" but rather it is "assumed" to be correct. In other words, they assume their explanation as to why the object falls is "true" because the evidence does not make such a showing in and of itself. What we as humans, and scientists, do is offer an explanation to answer the "why" of what we see. So, when Newton observed the apple fall to the ground, his mind began to work to understand how and why such an object fell to the ground, as opposed to floating upwards. Of course, he developed some ideas, some thoughts, and offered an explanation as to why objects fall to the earth, as opposed to floating upwards.

Yet, as the physicists told me, the fact an object falls to the earth does not demonstrate Newton's explanation is "correct."

No. If you do not know how science works, please do not impose your own framework of cobbled-together misunderstandings.

I know how science works. I have a good undestanding of how science works. I am repeating what I have read in biology books and have learned from physicists. One piece of evidence supporting evolution is the concept of "uniformity." Yet, scientists discovered this uniformity, and other phenomenon, and like Newton, attempted to make sense of it all with an explanation of how and why it exists. The only cobbled-together misunderstandings here are your unsubstantiated objections, which add no value to this dialogue.

Yes, that's right. Why all the business about "assuming"?

Because scientists, not having absolute and complete knowledge, cannot and do not know for certain if their explanations, such as the Big Bang, are correct. Hence, absent any such certainty, absent any such absolute and complete knowledge, they "assume." Pretty simple concept huh?

So, when they espouse the idea of a "Big Bang" to explain the phenomenon they are observing in the universe, they are not certain their explanation is "correct," and to avoid any confusion, "true," hence, this requires an assumption their explanation is "true."

Scientists do not claim to be certain their claims are correct but "assume" they are correct and this assumption is abandoned when and if new evidence, data, require a new paradigm shift, or if the predicitions do not materialize, etcetera.

Are you certain?

Unless human beings have infallible 100% knowledge of the world and universe, yes I am certain.

That has to be the most equivocated term in the known universe.

Yes, I agree....your post can be aptly characterized as a futile exercise to equivocate what cannot be equivocated in respect to some words. So why bother to do so?

 

[NotreDame]

.

Of course.

Wiccan...I like your post. In fact, I appreciate your post. I find it amazing you were capable of comprehending the meaning of the words and phrases I used in the post, while one other apparently had some difficulty, or maybe it is you are smart enough to figure it out.

At any rate, I appreciate your post and agree with your remarks. Good post.

 

[DeathMagus]

Unless human beings have infallible 100% knowledge of the world and universe, yes I am certain.

I'm not going to argue a point here, just pointing out a rather amusing logical paradox.

 

[TeddyKGB]

No, this is not correct...gravity is an explanation. On what planet and in which universe does gravity not qualify as an explanation?

Because "gravity" is a word. The explanation is necessarily something more than the word "gravity."

It is rather troubling that I have to explain this.

First, a large part of your problem is this "play stupid" facade you erect in discussions. I am not entirely sure how one could reasonably fail to understand the meaning of the phrase "assumed to be correct" but you have evidently accomplished the impossible.

"Assumption" has a specific meaning in a philosophical sense, and it is not what you say it is. You are talking about theories which are, at best, conclusions. Assumptions and conclusions are at opposite ends of the explanatory spectrum.

Second, scientific theories, if such a phrase is correct, are assumed to be correct. Why? Well, as a few physicists told me, an object observed falling to the ground does not demonstrate or prove scientific thoughts on why it falls is "correct" but rather it is "assumed" to be correct. In other words, they assume their explanation as to why the object falls is "true" because the evidence does not make such a showing in and of itself. What we as humans, and scientists, do is offer an explanation to answer the "why" of what we see. So, when Newton observed the apple fall to the ground, his mind began to work to understand how and why such an object fell to the ground, as opposed to floating upwards. Of course, he developed some ideas, some thoughts, and offered an explanation as to why objects fall to the earth, as opposed to floating upwards.

I don't know how confident Newton felt about his explanation of gravity; it doesn't matter in any case. In modern science, accepted theories are simply better approximations than discarded ones. If there is any sense in which a theory might be considered "true" (I submit that "truth" is both too loaded and too equivocated a term to have real scientific utility) it is that the theory has survived multiple attempts at falsification unscathed. There is no place for assumption.

It's ironic that you choose an example from physics. Newtonian mechanics is known to be ultimately wrong, but it approximates mainstream situations well enough that Newtonian mathematics are still used in less critical tasks.

Yet, as the physicists told me, the fact an object falls to the earth does not demonstrate Newton's explanation is "correct."

No kidding. So why, again, are you going on about assumption?

I know how science works. I have a good undestanding of how science works. I am repeating what I have read in biology books and have learned from physicists. One piece of evidence supporting evolution is the concept of "uniformity."

I am not sure what you mean. There is a geological principle known as uniformitarianism, commonly attributed to Charles Lyell. It tends to be, unfortunately, wildly misunderstood by creationists.

Yet, scientists discovered this uniformity, and other phenomenon, and like Newton, attempted to make sense of it all with an explanation of how and why it exists. The only cobbled-together misunderstandings here are your unsubstantiated objections, which add no value to this dialogue.

Wishful thinking. The truth is you're in over your head. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know your biology from your geology. The question now is: Are you going to find some humility or continue to falsely represent expertise?

Because scientists, not having absolute and complete knowledge, cannot and do not know for certain if their explanations, such as the Big Bang, are correct. Hence, absent any such certainty, absent any such absolute and complete knowledge, they "assume." Pretty simple concept huh?

It might be if it made a single shred of sense. What do scientists "assume" if they are already aware that their knowledge is incomplete?

So, when they espouse the idea of a "Big Bang" to explain the phenomenon they are observing in the universe, they are not certain their explanation is "correct," and to avoid any confusion, "true," hence, this requires an assumption their explanation is "true."
Scientists do not claim to be certain their claims are correct but "assume" they are correct and this assumption is abandoned when and if new evidence, data, require a new paradigm shift, or if the predicitions do not materialize, etcetera.

Why does "assumption" seem to have the same rhetorical content as "tentatively hold a conclusion"?

Do you realize how big a mess you are making of your argument?

Yes, I agree....your post can be aptly characterized as a futile exercise to equivocate what cannot be equivocated in respect to some words. So why bother to do so?

Now you are accusing me of trying to do something you say can't be done, but which you have actually been doing continuously since your ignominious entrance into this thread?

I declare this Bizarro Thread.

 

[NotreDame]

Because "gravity" is a word. The explanation is necessarily something more than the word "gravity."

It is rather troubling that I have to explain this.

My freaking goodness....you take "literalism" to such an extreme as to defy common sense. In fact, your entire remark above is nothing more than a joke and a good laugh. Really. Your remark above is good laughing material.

It is rather troubling that I have to explain this

No, what is rather troubling is your demonstrated inability to get past your use and operation of extreme and illogical "literalism."

"Assumption" has a specific meaning in a philosophical sense, and it is not what you say it is. You are talking about theories which are, at best, conclusions. Assumptions and conclusions are at opposite ends of the explanatory spectrum.

Well I am glad you are here to explain the obvious to me professor. Yes, assumptions do have a philosophical meaning and I am quite aware of the meaning. However, such a dialogue is not even necessary for the phrase of, "assumed to be correct." I find it amazing Wiccan Child had no difficulty reading and comprehending what is being said and you go on these diatribes of focusing upon these red herrings. Your posts are great filibuster material. The dialogue does not progress because you bring it to a screeching halt with your modus operandi of red herrings and illogical literal readings.

The fact is, nothing you said above has any relevance to my remark. A "conclusion" can be "assumed" as true/correct and nothing you said above negates this at all.

If there is any sense in which a theory might be considered "true" (I submit that "truth" is both too loaded and too equivocated a term to have real scientific utility) it is that the theory has survived multiple attempts at falsification unscathed. There is no place for assumption.

Oh yes...the fabled "equivocated" approach. You love the "equivocated" approach, as in every post I have read of yours, you rely upon it every time.

Every word you relied upon in your post is too loaded and equivocated to have any real discernable meaning.

Wishful thinking. The truth is you're in over your head. You don't know what a theory is, and you don't know your biology from your geology. The question now is: Are you going to find some humility or continue to falsely represent expertise?

No, I am not in over my head. I do know what a theory is, and I do know my biology. Yes, I am going to demonstrate enough humility for you to eat some crow.
Human Biology, 6th edition, Sylvia S. Mader, page 463, says, "diverse organisms sometimes share anatomical similarities. Vertebrate forelimbs are used for flight (birds and bats), orientation during swimming (whales and seals) running (horses) climbing (arboreal lizards), or swinging from tree branches (monkeys). Yet all vertebrate forelimbs contain the same sets of bones organized in similar ways, despite their dissimilar functions (Fig 22.2 showing whale vertebrate forelims, cat, horse, bird, bat, and human). The most plausible explanation for this unity is that the basic forelimb plan originated with a common ancestor, and then the plan was modified in the succeeding groups as each continued along its own evolutionary pathway. Structures that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor are called homologous structures.

Guess what the Human Biology book calls this? They call it "Unity of Plan." Now, one meaning of "unity" is the state of being united or "uniform." So when I used the word uniformity, I was not really as far off or did not know what I was talking about.

The book then goes on to discuss other similarities. This is what I was talking about and referring to all along.

It might be if it made a single shred of sense. What do scientists "assume" if they are already aware that their knowledge is incomplete?

The fact their explanation is actually the explanation for some observed phenomenon or behavior among and with observed phenomena.

Why does "assumption" seem to have the same rhetorical content as "tentatively hold a conclusion"?

Do you realize how big a mess you are making of your argument?

The only mess here is the one you attempt to make of it by this second grade approach of playing stupid. My argument is not a mess. If it were such a mess, I find it most interesting Wiccan Child was capable of comprehending what was being said but you cannot. Your incoherent replies are the mess.

Now you are accusing me of trying to do something you say can't be done, but which you have actually been doing continuously since your ignominious entrance into this thread?

Oh yes, the boring and monotonous "equivocation" speech again. Your reliance upon it is amusing and you do it so much, even in places where it makes no sense to do so, that it is used in the absence of critical thinking analysis.

Well, let's end this post focusing upon what I said and how, once again it seems, you fail to grasp the meaning of what is being said.

Yes, I agree....your post can be aptly characterized as a futile exercise to equivocate what cannot be equivocated in respect to some words. So why bother to do so?

Oh, had you read more carefully, you would observe I did not assert it COULD NOT BE DONE but rather was much more specific in what I said, i.e. I carefully qualified my remark.

I declare this Bizarro Thread.

Your posts are bizarro....they are inundated time and again with illogical reliance upon literalism and equivocating the word equivocating, for the sake of getting nowhere in the dialogue. Captain Equivocation, I find it to be a more useful dialogue with people like Wiccan, and so perhaps it is best we do not discuss anything on any of these forums because all you will do, time and time again, is rely upon an extreme form of literalism and allegations of "equivocation". It is best if you just ignore each other because, after all, you cannot discern what I am saying because every word I type I am "equivocating".

 

[NotreDame]

I'm not going to argue a point here, just pointing out a rather amusing logical paradox.

Sure it is a paradox but let's ask ourselves a fundamentally important question. Is it true? If you want an unequivocated meaning of the word "true," then I am sure Teddy KGB, in his pursuit finding equivocations, can assuredly give you an unequivocal answer.

Just as the relativists position of, "All truth is relative," presents a logical paradox. But as Robert Nozick observed, in his book, "Invariances," such a retort hardly tells us if the statement is true or false. Hence, as Nozick suggests, context becomes important. I think the context in which I made the remark avoids the type of logical paradox you make and it is equally important to recall what remark I am talking about.

 

[cantata]

The number of "s in this thread is making my eyes bleed.

Do scientists assume or "assume"? I'm not even sure what "assuming" as opposed to assuming might be. Apparently, they assume things are "correct", but I don't know what it would be to assume something to be "correct" as opposed to correct - maybe to assume it not to be correct at all? Oh, wait! Are they "assuming" or assuming that it's "correct"? If they "assume" that it's "correct", do the "s cancel each other out?

The idea that someone might employ "literalism" instead of literalism is doubly bemusing. Is "literalism" only superficially literal?

Seriously, NotreDame - put down the scare quotes. They render your argument completely unintelligible.

 

[TeddyKGB]

My freaking goodness....you take "literalism" to such an extreme as to defy common sense. In fact, your entire remark above is nothing more than a joke and a good laugh. Really. Your remark above is good laughing material.

Silly me. Obviously when you say "gravity" you mean "Newtonian gravitation." Right?

Well I am glad you are here to explain the obvious to me professor. Yes, assumptions do have a philosophical meaning and I am quite aware of the meaning. However, such a dialogue is not even necessary for the phrase of, "assumed to be correct." I find it amazing Wiccan Child had no difficulty reading and comprehending what is being said and you go on these diatribes of focusing upon these red herrings. Your posts are great filibuster material. The dialogue does not progress because you bring it to a screeching halt with your modus operandi of red herrings and illogical literal readings.

As a 5+ year veteran of the creation-evolution debate, I have seen entirely too many arguments supported solely by misused or misunderstood terminology. I find that philosophical precision often resolves such problems, and when it doesn't simple agreement usually suffices.

Unfortunately, I think "assumed to be correct" describes theory-making problematically at best; scientific conclusions sometimes are called assumptions pejoratively. And I am certainly not going along with your implication that "assumed to be correct" has some obvious, benign meaning that I'm just too boneheaded to discern.

Oh yes...the fabled "equivocated" approach. You love the "equivocated" approach, as in every post I have read of yours, you rely upon it every time.

Don't blame me. "Assume" is a commonly equivocated word. If I don't do something now, you'll start calling scientific conclusions assumptions the moment my back is turned.

Every word you relied upon in your post is too loaded and equivocated to have any real discernable meaning.

It is the case that I know you are. But that begs the question: What am I?

No, I am not in over my head. I do know what a theory is, and I do know my biology. Yes, I am going to demonstrate enough humility for you to eat some crow.
Human Biology, 6th edition, Sylvia S. Mader, page 463, says, "diverse organisms sometimes share anatomical similarities. Vertebrate forelimbs are used for flight (birds and bats), orientation during swimming (whales and seals) running (horses) climbing (arboreal lizards), or swinging from tree branches (monkeys). Yet all vertebrate forelimbs contain the same sets of bones organized in similar ways, despite their dissimilar functions (Fig 22.2 showing whale vertebrate forelims, cat, horse, bird, bat, and human). The most plausible explanation for this unity is that the basic forelimb plan originated with a common ancestor, and then the plan was modified in the succeeding groups as each continued along its own evolutionary pathway. Structures that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor are called homologous structures.

Guess what the Human Biology book calls this? They call it "Unity of Plan." Now, one meaning of "unity" is the state of being united or "uniform." So when I used the word uniformity, I was not really as far off or did not know what I was talking about.

The book then goes on to discuss other similarities. This is what I was talking about and referring to all along.

Wow.

Okay, know what? I'll accept your face-save for the time being. Let's see if this goes anywhere it shouldn't.

The fact their explanation is actually the explanation for some observed phenomenon or behavior among and with observed phenomena.

And yet they're always testing it for potential falsifications. Not exactly the way one might treat something "assumed to be correct," wouldn't you say?

Your posts are bizarro....they are inundated time and again with illogical reliance upon literalism and equivocating the word equivocating, for the sake of getting nowhere in the dialogue. Captain Equivocation, I find it to be a more useful dialogue with people like Wiccan, and so perhaps it is best we do not discuss anything on any of these forums because all you will do, time and time again, is rely upon an extreme form of literalism and allegations of "equivocation". It is best if you just ignore each other because, after all, you cannot discern what I am saying because every word I type I am "equivocating".

Don't get mad(der), but I now have to accuse you of exaggerating. It's probably just a coincidence that "exaggerating" also starts with "e."

 

[Braunwyn]

Maybe I'm just not following the conversation but I'm lost on the point of how gravity is an explanation...of gravity?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe I'm just not following the conversation but I'm lost on the point of how gravity is an explanation...of gravity?

Perhaps he means gravity is an explanation for why things fall?

 

[Braunwyn]

Perhaps he means gravity is an explanation for why things fall?

Is it though? I don't understand how it's an explanation rather than a descriptor if you wouldn't mind explaining.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it though? I don't understand how it's an explanation rather than a descriptor if you wouldn't mind explaining.

"Why do masses move together?"
"There's a force pulling them. That force is gravity, and it works by [diatribe on Einsteinian relativity and spacetime curvature]"
"... ah"

 

[Braunwyn]

"Why do masses move together?"
"There's a force pulling them. That force is gravity, and it works by [diatribe on Einsteinian relativity and spacetime curvature]"
"... ah"

For pete's sake. I keep writing posts and then loose my connection. Any way, I see now. I was viewing it as though it was understood that falling objects was synonymous with attractive force and that wasn't the case. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste LonesomeTexan,

thank you for the post.

How can you justify existance without a divine Creator?

i don't know what you mean by "justify" in this case nevertheless there is no need to posit a creator deity of any sort for this universe to exist.

in my world view the universe is cyclical, i.e. they arise, expand and contract only to arise again with no beginning to be found.

How did the heavens and the earth come to form out of a vast expanse of nothing?

by "heavens" do you mean universe?

the No Boundary Proposal coupled with the Anthropic Principle seems to be a very satisfactory answer to this question.

Surely there was a divine beginning and initial creation set in motion by a higher power.

that is strictly a religious belief and one which not every religion shares, by the way.

somewhat tangential to your main point is that there are several different types of formal logic so you'd have to sort of narrow down your OP question to get a precise answer.

metta,

~v

 

[Athrond]

lol. so do you care to answer any of the questions I posted? do you think we came to exist by random chance? To me and most logical thinkers, that seems highly unlikely. I'd argue that a much more logical conclusion is that a divine power having influence in the creation of the universe and everything in it. Heck, even Einstien acknowledged that God didn't roll dice in regards to quantum physics. It's seems awful foolish to totally dismiss God when we will never know all there is to know about everything that exists. We have limits to what we can know. There will always be questions that science can't answer and only a fool would think otherwise.

well you say that as if "divine creator" is logical at all. You just create a new problem. If your creator existed all the time, why can't the universe have the same properties?

 

[NotreDame]

Silly me. Obviously when you say "gravity" you mean "Newtonian gravitation." Right?

No, it is evidence you use the word "equivocation" to halt a dialogue, all the while ignoring the reasoning used in the argument. In fact, you misuse it time and time again. Whereas people such as Wiccan, can focus upon the reasoning of an argument and address the reasoning, without bringing the dialogue to a halting stop over non-sense allegations of "equivocation" or your misuse of the term.

Unfortunately, I think "assumed to be correct" describes theory-making problematically at best; scientific conclusions sometimes are called assumptions pejoratively. And I am certainly not going along with your implication that "assumed to be correct" has some obvious, benign meaning that I'm just too boneheaded to discern.

Well, you called yourself this, not me, but it is and was benign, had you actually taken the time to think through it or inquire further, before jumping right in with the remarks you did.

Don't blame me. "Assume" is a commonly equivocated word. If I don't do something now, you'll start calling scientific conclusions assumptions the moment my back is turned.

What a pleasant slippery slope argument you have presented. You must make illogical reasoning a habit. The word "assume" may be commonly misused but this is entirely irrelevant in this dialogue. The fact other people misuse terms has no bearing in this dialogue. Furthermore, the logical fallacy of equivocation has a precise meaning and nothing I said fulfills it but given its definition, you certainly have a proclivity for misapplying it.

Now, I anxiously await your reply, which I predict will ignore the reasoning of the argument and focus on the fact other people equivocate words, which amounts to an illogical fallacy of red herring. Nice.

 

[TeddyKGB]

No, it is evidence you use the word "equivocation" to halt a dialogue, all the while ignoring the reasoning used in the argument. In fact, you misuse it time and time again. Whereas people such as Wiccan, can focus upon the reasoning of an argument and address the reasoning, without bringing the dialogue to a halting stop over non-sense allegations of "equivocation" or your misuse of the term.

And the fact that we are where we are has, I assume, nothing to do with your absurd overreaction to my noting that the word "gravity" has several meanings and that simply writing the word "gravity" is not itself an explanation?

Well, you called yourself this, not me, but it is and was benign, had you actually taken the time to think through it or inquire further, before jumping right in with the remarks you did.

I'd like to be charitable, really. It certainly would be less painful than watching you tilt at invisible windmills. But "assume a conclusion" is simply gobbledygook.

What a pleasant slippery slope argument you have presented. You must make illogical reasoning a habit. The word "assume" may be commonly misused but this is entirely irrelevant in this dialogue. The fact other people misuse terms has no bearing in this dialogue. Furthermore, the logical fallacy of equivocation has a precise meaning and nothing I said fulfills it but given its definition, you certainly have a proclivity for misapplying it.

I'm going to raise the red flag every day of the week and twice on Sunday when someone says "assume a conclusion." You might as well get over it, choose another phrase, and we'll see if we can't salvage something here.