God and the Totality of Being as a Hallucination

[Eodnhoj7]

'Being omnipresent' also relates to 'being present', that is; in relation to what is 'being observed'. SEE, what is observed is physical matter, and since, according to 'you', God is mandated to be connected through all being under observation, then this STILL fits PERFECTLY with what I have observed and with 'That', which UNIFIES and EXPLAINS ALL-OF-THIS.

Your definition of, and for the, word 'God' here STILL fits PERFECTLY, with what 'God' ACTUALLY IS. Which is NOT "all that exists".

If, and when, you become curious ENOUGH, then you ALSO will SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this'.



So, what you are essentially saying here is, to 'you', if 'you' perceive 'God' to be the SINNING and the WRONG, which ONLY adult human beings do, then that IS what 'you' ARE. However, if this is Wrong or Incorrect, then PLEASE feel FREE to CORRECT 'me' here.



LOL 'you' could NOT be ANY FURTHER from what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

SEE, ' 'God' as the physical universe itself' is NOT some thing that I BELIEVE, NOR ASSUME, AT ALL.

That is what I have OBSERVED, which COULD BE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. BUT, I can ACTUALLY back up AND support this VIEW, with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.

So, 'you' were COMPLETELY WRONG, AGAIN.



I have ALREADY AGREED with this.

And, by the way, I can ACTUALLY back this up AND support this with ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF.



Okay, if you say so.



"FAILING" in 'what', EXACTLY?

Sinning is the absence of God as the limits of Gods existence within a particular context.

Therefore, THE definition of 'God', which, supposedly, includes "all that exists", would NOT WORK within the True and FULL, particular, context.

Only being exists and being is good, sin is the absence of the fullness of being. So where the fullness of being is absent within a particular context, being still occurs and compared to Nothingness it is fundamentally good.

Sin is the limits of God existence through being thus underlying only that which exists as good. For example rape is bad, but the formation of a child through natural law is a good.

WHAT?

Since when has there been a, so called, "natural law", which has a conception or preconception of 'bad'.

IF the, so called, "formation of a child" is 'good' or 'bad', then this is ONLY because of what 'you', human beings, think or BELIEVE.

'good' or 'bad' are only views, or 'things', from and of human beings ONLY. For example, 'rape', itself, is NEITHER 'good' NOR 'bad', just like, 'the formation of a child is NEITHER 'good' NOR 'bad'. These 'things' HAPPEN, and HAPPEN NATURALLY.

What happens naturally is law given the being itself is law.

The rape is a deficiency within the conception of a child (given a health relationship between parents is a positive in the rearing of a child).

If you say so, then okay.

And where are we disagreeing exactly?

For one, where you wrote:
A definition of God includes "all that exists"

I do NOT agree with this. As EXPLAINED above.

Then clarify because your stance seems muddled.

What is it that I am wrong on and that which you are correct on relative to God's existence?

'That', which you are (badly worded) "WRONG ON", is by starting a sentence with:
A definition of God includes "all that exists"

And then using 'that' OBVIOUSLY Wrong AND Incorrect definition to 'try to' "back up" and "support" ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else which you want to CLAIM is true.

I suggest that if you want to 'fight' or 'argue' against other human beings, then just use 'that' what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct.

Again another muddled response, your position is not clear.

You are assuming your senses are correct if God is strictly physical.

But I am NOT assuming ANY thing AT ALL like this what YOU CLAIM here. I have NEVER EVEN ASSUMED ANY thing AT ALL like this. In fact, I do NOT even agree with ANY thing AT ALL like this.

So, WHY have 'you' ASSUMED what 'you' have, HERE?

I have NEVER even said, let alone meant, ANY thing even remotely close to what you have said here. So, what the 'things' were which caused 'you' to come to ASSUME such a thing as 'you' have here, only 'you' would Truly KNOW.

So God is not strictly physical?

[Eodnhoj7]

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

Also, EVERY 'thing' which is OBSERVED, or NOTICED, and EXPERIENCED imprints itself upon the 'psyche'. But how much or for how long is another matter.

The act of imprinting, as accepting a phenomenon for what it is, is assumption.

If you SAY SO, and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST BE SO, correct?

And, if this IS CORRECT, and therefore is just YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION, then are you FULLY AWARE that 'ASSUMPTIONS', themselves could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

If no, then you are NOW.

We assume what is correct and false based upon there alignment or misalignment with prior assumptions. While assumptions may be false they may also be true, all is dependent upon the connection of one assumption to another.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

False, assumptions are that which imprint one phenomenon onto another. I said this before.

Also, BE AWARE that until a view is BACKED UP and SUPPORTED, then it is essentially REMAINS only just an 'assumption', a 'guess', or just a 'theory', AND, by definition, YOUR ASSUMPTION and GUESS here MEANS that it will ALWAYS remain just an 'ASSUMPTION' and a 'GUESS', ONLY.

Therefore, 'you', "eodnhoj7", will ALWAYS REMAIN in YOUR OWN TRAP.

See above.

Anything which is agreed upon by multiple perspectives is in turn assumed by a group, you are assuming group interpretation as correct, your point contradicts itself....again.

LOL 'you' have NOT EVEN got CORRECT what I have CLEARLY SAID, in WRITTEN, thus PROVEN WORDS.

I suggest using thee ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED, that is; IF you REALLY WANT to 'try to' use them to argue AGAINST 'me'.

ALSO, and by the way, ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT EVEN ASSUMING what 'you', AGAIN, CLAIM HERE.

Get back to 'me' when either 'you' use MY 'words' CORRECTLY, or when 'you' CLARIFY with 'me' FIRST.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.


Group agreement and acceptance is your prerequisite for that which is not assumed, yet not only is this an assumption on your part but it is relying upon group assumptions where multiple people assume the same thing.

[Scott Mayers]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

I'm guessing this relates to my arguments using Totality?

The human origins of religion DO come from the roots of philosophic thought and secular reality, regardless. Anselm argued in a way to defend THAT the concept of totality is real. I found this fair. But when he transferred the meaning to the label, 'God', it was intended to justify a SPECIFIC essence that had complexly irreducibly properties. This is a trick of transference that is not appropriate.

The general concept of Totality though is meaningful and realistic. No special call for a religious being is implied.

[Eodnhoj7]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

I'm guessing this relates to my arguments using Totality?

The human origins of religion DO come from the roots of philosophic thought and secular reality, regardless. Anselm argued in a way to defend THAT the concept of totality is real. I found this fair. But when he transferred the meaning to the label, 'God', it was intended to justify a SPECIFIC essence that had complexly irreducibly properties. This is a trick of transference that is not appropriate.

The general concept of Totality though is meaningful and realistic. No special call for a religious being is implied.

Totality is a subset definition of God. All phenomenon as connected through totality allows for transference of one phenomenon to another thus what Anselm argued was not a trick.

[Scott Mayers]

A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.

I'm guessing this relates to my arguments using Totality?

The human origins of religion DO come from the roots of philosophic thought and secular reality, regardless. Anselm argued in a way to defend THAT the concept of totality is real. I found this fair. But when he transferred the meaning to the label, 'God', it was intended to justify a SPECIFIC essence that had complexly irreducibly properties. This is a trick of transference that is not appropriate.

The general concept of Totality though is meaningful and realistic. No special call for a religious being is implied.

Totality is a subset definition of God. All phenomenon as connected through totality allows for transference of one phenomenon to another thus what Anselm argued was not a trick.

A 'superset', not a 'subset'. That is, if a 'God' exists, it is a 'subset' of Totality, not the other way around. When Anselm argued using "that which nothing greater can be conceived", he was arguing for the existence of the concept we call 'Totality' MINUS any other extraneous properties. Thus his error was in TRANSFERING the meaning of the whole to some 'special' subset of it that is more complex, that he labelled, "God".

The difference between them, if considering ONLY some other meaning for "God" versus "Totality", is that the "God" has AT LEAST the loaded connotation that it has VALUE biased to being "good".

This is the Genesis reasoning for stating that X occurred, and then God saw that it was, "good", meaning that it satisfied an AGREEMENT between it and its creation.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm guessing this relates to my arguments using Totality?

The human origins of religion DO come from the roots of philosophic thought and secular reality, regardless. Anselm argued in a way to defend THAT the concept of totality is real. I found this fair. But when he transferred the meaning to the label, 'God', it was intended to justify a SPECIFIC essence that had complexly irreducibly properties. This is a trick of transference that is not appropriate.

The general concept of Totality though is meaningful and realistic. No special call for a religious being is implied.

Totality is a subset definition of God. All phenomenon as connected through totality allows for transference of one phenomenon to another thus what Anselm argued was not a trick.

A 'superset', not a 'subset'. That is, if a 'God' exists, it is a 'subset' of Totality, not the other way around. When Anselm argued using "that which nothing greater can be conceived", he was arguing for the existence of the concept we call 'Totality' MINUS any other extraneous properties. Thus his error was in TRANSFERING the meaning of the whole to some 'special' subset of it that is more complex, that he labelled, "God".

The difference between them, if considering ONLY some other meaning for "God" versus "Totality", is that the "God" has AT LEAST the loaded connotation that it has VALUE biased to being "good".

This is the Genesis reasoning for stating that X occurred, and then God saw that it was, "good", meaning that it satisfied an AGREEMENT between it and its creation.

That is a relative perspective, considering which is a subset of which is dependent upon a chosen starting point. God as totality is an act of equivocation and this equivocation occurs given through totality all concepts are connected.

God as beyond being, necessitates totality as a subset of God.

[Scott Mayers]

Totality is a subset definition of God. All phenomenon as connected through totality allows for transference of one phenomenon to another thus what Anselm argued was not a trick.

A 'superset', not a 'subset'. That is, if a 'God' exists, it is a 'subset' of Totality, not the other way around. When Anselm argued using "that which nothing greater can be conceived", he was arguing for the existence of the concept we call 'Totality' MINUS any other extraneous properties. Thus his error was in TRANSFERING the meaning of the whole to some 'special' subset of it that is more complex, that he labelled, "God".

The difference between them, if considering ONLY some other meaning for "God" versus "Totality", is that the "God" has AT LEAST the loaded connotation that it has VALUE biased to being "good".

This is the Genesis reasoning for stating that X occurred, and then God saw that it was, "good", meaning that it satisfied an AGREEMENT between it and its creation.

That is a relative perspective, considering which is a subset of which is dependent upon a chosen starting point. God as totality is an act of equivocation and this equivocation occurs given through totality all concepts are connected.

God as beyond being, necessitates totality as a subset of God.

My point is that they are separate things. One is religious, the other is not. "Totality" is a 'class' description; "God" is a religious claim of ownership OR false equivocation of the logical concept. That was his major error.

[Eodnhoj7]

A 'superset', not a 'subset'. That is, if a 'God' exists, it is a 'subset' of Totality, not the other way around. When Anselm argued using "that which nothing greater can be conceived", he was arguing for the existence of the concept we call 'Totality' MINUS any other extraneous properties. Thus his error was in TRANSFERING the meaning of the whole to some 'special' subset of it that is more complex, that he labelled, "God".

The difference between them, if considering ONLY some other meaning for "God" versus "Totality", is that the "God" has AT LEAST the loaded connotation that it has VALUE biased to being "good".

This is the Genesis reasoning for stating that X occurred, and then God saw that it was, "good", meaning that it satisfied an AGREEMENT between it and its creation.

That is a relative perspective, considering which is a subset of which is dependent upon a chosen starting point. God as totality is an act of equivocation and this equivocation occurs given through totality all concepts are connected.

God as beyond being, necessitates totality as a subset of God.

My point is that they are separate things. One is religious, the other is not. "Totality" is a 'class' description; "God" is a religious claim of ownership OR false equivocation of the logical concept. That was his major error.

My point is under totality there is no complete seperation. God and totality fundamentally equivocate.

[Scott Mayers]

That is a relative perspective, considering which is a subset of which is dependent upon a chosen starting point. God as totality is an act of equivocation and this equivocation occurs given through totality all concepts are connected.

God as beyond being, necessitates totality as a subset of God.

My point is that they are separate things. One is religious, the other is not. "Totality" is a 'class' description; "God" is a religious claim of ownership OR false equivocation of the logical concept. That was his major error.

My point is under totality there is no complete seperation. God and totality fundamentally equivocate.

The label, "Totality", is relatively an 'undefined' term, a 'variable'. Nevertheless, AS a 'variable', the description I've given is clear and NOT reliant upon any beliefs. You can start off by defining ANYTHING you experience as "Totality" (from your initial perspective), a tentative definition that equates:

If I exist, label that "Totality".

If I discover that I am not alone, then REDEFINE "Totality" to refer to that which I AND whatever else exists as "Totality".

The generative altering of the definition acts 'continuously' without end. As long as you keep finding something MORE, add that to the newly re-generated definition, include "nothing" to this meaning, and you have MY definition using a dynamic process that actually mimicks your meaning.

If my meaning is 'religious', than so would absolutely everything by your interpretation. I disagree because the concept being tied to the Anselm meaning is INSUFFICIENT to describing ALL that is meant by the term, "God". And I pointed out that the EVALUATION of "God" as having an emotive meaning of 'good' versus 'evil' is what makes it religious. It says that 'evil' is a subset of an origin in 'good' and that Totality is equal in meaning.

If YOU still believe this is implicit in the meaning, you are just preventing me a label to describe a super-class label only. This is just as bad as the religious person who demands that if I accept the Universe as existing, then I MUST accept "God" as existing or I am not allowed to speak for daring to deny their definition (improper as it is) contradictory.

The "whole of everything" is not equivalent to meaning "God" or YOU are doing the false equivocating in the same way that Anselm argued.

[Eodnhoj7]

My point is that they are separate things. One is religious, the other is not. "Totality" is a 'class' description; "God" is a religious claim of ownership OR false equivocation of the logical concept. That was his major error.

My point is under totality there is no complete seperation. God and totality fundamentally equivocate.

The label, "Totality", is relatively an 'undefined' term, a 'variable'. Nevertheless, AS a 'variable', the description I've given is clear and NOT reliant upon any beliefs. You can start off by defining ANYTHING you experience as "Totality" (from your initial perspective), a tentative definition that equates:

If I exist, label that "Totality".

If I discover that I am not alone, then REDEFINE "Totality" to refer to that which I AND whatever else exists as "Totality".

The generative altering of the definition acts 'continuously' without end. As long as you keep finding something MORE, add that to the newly re-generated definition, include "nothing" to this meaning, and you have MY definition using a dynamic process that actually mimicks your meaning.

If my meaning is 'religious', than so would absolutely everything by your interpretation. I disagree because the concept being tied to the Anselm meaning is INSUFFICIENT to describing ALL that is meant by the term, "God". And I pointed out that the EVALUATION of "God" as having an emotive meaning of 'good' versus 'evil' is what makes it religious. It says that 'evil' is a subset of an origin in 'good' and that Totality is equal in meaning.

If YOU still believe this is implicit in the meaning, you are just preventing me a label to describe a super-class label only. This is just as bad as the religious person who demands that if I accept the Universe as existing, then I MUST accept "God" as existing or I am not allowed to speak for daring to deny their definition (improper as it is) contradictory.

The "whole of everything" is not equivalent to meaning "God" or YOU are doing the false equivocating in the same way that Anselm argued.

The continual progression of one meaning to another necessitates the meaning of totality as eventually being "God" in the respect one phenomenon as progressive to another leaves all phenomena embodied under a simple term. The progressive definition may begin with "totality" or God but given the continuous stream of phenomena progressing to further phenomenon all phenomenon eventually equivocate to another thus necessitating any beginning point to the argument ("God" or "Totality") being one of relative choice.

[Age]

Only being exists and being is good, sin is the absence of the fullness of being. So where the fullness of being is absent within a particular context, being still occurs and compared to Nothingness it is fundamentally good.

How do you define 'being'?

What happens naturally is law given the being itself is law.

What is 'being'?

Then clarify because your stance seems muddled.

Do NOT demand of me to do some 'thing'.

Ask me to do some 'thing', and then I will decide if I want to or not.

Also, inform me of what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you would like me to CLARIFY. Otherwise I have absolutely NO idea what 'it' is that you would like CLARIFIED or are DEMANDING I CLARIFY.

Again another muddled response, your position is not clear.

Again, another response with absolutely NO indication of what IS muddled and unclear to 'you'.

Or, I could put this another way, Yet another muddled response, your position is not clear, so now clarify. But, I would not be as unclear and as muddled to put 'this' this way.

You are assuming your senses are correct if God is strictly physical.

But I am NOT assuming ANY thing AT ALL like this what YOU CLAIM here. I have NEVER EVEN ASSUMED ANY thing AT ALL like this. In fact, I do NOT even agree with ANY thing AT ALL like this.

So, WHY have 'you' ASSUMED what 'you' have, HERE?

I have NEVER even said, let alone meant, ANY thing even remotely close to what you have said here. So, what the 'things' were which caused 'you' to come to ASSUME such a thing as 'you' have here, only 'you' would Truly KNOW.

So God is not strictly physical?

Are you telling/informing or asking? The question mark appears to contradict the wording.

By the way, you did NOT answer my clarifying questions here.

[Age]

We assume what is correct and false based upon there alignment or misalignment with prior assumptions. While assumptions may be false they may also be true, all is dependent upon the connection of one assumption to another.

If that is what 'you' do, then so be it.

But adding the word 'we' here is just yet ONE MORE ASSUMPTION on top of ALL of the OTHER ASSUMPTIONS that 'you' make. With OBVIOUSLY ALL of them having a chance of being False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

False, assumptions are that which imprint one phenomenon onto another. I said this before.

So, are you REALLY now 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST that YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NEVER be WRONG?

I did, after all, just say; REMEMBER that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS could be WRONG. And YOUR RESPONSE to this is; ""False ...""

If that is NOT what you are 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST, then what are you 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST by YOUR, "False ...", response?

See above.

What for?

Anything which is agreed upon by multiple perspectives is in turn assumed by a group, you are assuming group interpretation as correct, your point contradicts itself....again.

LOL 'you' have NOT EVEN got CORRECT what I have CLEARLY SAID, in WRITTEN, thus PROVEN WORDS.

I suggest using thee ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED, that is; IF you REALLY WANT to 'try to' use them to argue AGAINST 'me'.

ALSO, and by the way, ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT EVEN ASSUMING what 'you', AGAIN, CLAIM HERE.

Get back to 'me' when either 'you' use MY 'words' CORRECTLY, or when 'you' CLARIFY with 'me' FIRST.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

Group agreement and acceptance is your prerequisite for that which is not assumed,

NOT AT ALL.

Again, WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

yet not only is this an assumption on your part but it is relying upon group assumptions where multiple people assume the same thing.

But this could NEVER be "an assumption on my part" because this is NOT "my assumption". This is YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE here.

I NEVER said ANY thing at all that would even resemble such a thing as this. You have just JUMPED TO THIS FALSE CONCLUSION, which was based on YOUR PREVIOUS FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

If you would care to READ AGAIN the ACTUAL WORDS that I used, then you MIGHT SEE DIFFERENTLY.

[Eodnhoj7]

[

[Eodnhoj7]

Only being exists and being is good, sin is the absence of the fullness of being. So where the fullness of being is absent within a particular context, being still occurs and compared to Nothingness it is fundamentally good.

How do you define 'being'?

That which is self evident and accepted as is.

What happens naturally is law given the being itself is law.

What is 'being'?

I just said it, law.

Then clarify because your stance seems muddled.

Do NOT demand of me to do some 'thing'.

Ask me to do some 'thing', and then I will decide if I want to or not.

Also, inform me of what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you would like me to CLARIFY. Otherwise I have absolutely NO idea what 'it' is that you would like CLARIFIED or are DEMANDING I CLARIFY.

What is being?

Again another muddled response, your position is not clear.

Again, another response with absolutely NO indication of what IS muddled and unclear to 'you'.

Or, I could put this another way, Yet another muddled response, your position is not clear, so now clarify. But, I would not be as unclear and as muddled to put 'this' this way.

But I am NOT assuming ANY thing AT ALL like this what YOU CLAIM here. I have NEVER EVEN ASSUMED ANY thing AT ALL like this. In fact, I do NOT even agree with ANY thing AT ALL like this.

So, WHY have 'you' ASSUMED what 'you' have, HERE?

I have NEVER even said, let alone meant, ANY thing even remotely close to what you have said here. So, what the 'things' were which caused 'you' to come to ASSUME such a thing as 'you' have here, only 'you' would Truly KNOW.

So God is not strictly physical?

Are you telling/informing or asking? The question mark appears to contradict the wording.

By the way, you did NOT answer my clarifying questions here.

And what questions are those? List them.

[Eodnhoj7]

We assume what is correct and false based upon there alignment or misalignment with prior assumptions. While assumptions may be false they may also be true, all is dependent upon the connection of one assumption to another.

If that is what 'you' do, then so be it.

But adding the word 'we' here is just yet ONE MORE ASSUMPTION on top of ALL of the OTHER ASSUMPTIONS that 'you' make. With OBVIOUSLY ALL of them having a chance of being False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

They also have the chance of being correct.

NOW, remember that ALL ASSUMPTIONS are based on NOTHING AT ALL but just a GUESS, which ALL guesses can OBVIOUSLY be False, Wrong and/or Incorrect. I have informed 'you', enough times now, that EVERY time 'you' want to INSIST, and ARGUE, that ALL of Y/OUR VIEWS are grounded on ASSUMPTION, then this GUESS of YOURS could be COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. Therefore, EVERY time you 'try to' INSIST the above 'you' are ALWAYS going to fall into this 'trap' of YOUR OWN MAKING.

False, assumptions are that which imprint one phenomenon onto another. I said this before.

So, are you REALLY now 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST that YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NEVER be WRONG?

No I am defining assumption.

I did, after all, just say; REMEMBER that YOUR ASSUMPTIONS could be WRONG. And YOUR RESPONSE to this is; ""False ...""

If that is NOT what you are 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST, then what are you 'trying to' ASSERT and INSIST by YOUR, "False ...", response?

See above.

What for?

LOL 'you' have NOT EVEN got CORRECT what I have CLEARLY SAID, in WRITTEN, thus PROVEN WORDS.

I suggest using thee ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED, that is; IF you REALLY WANT to 'try to' use them to argue AGAINST 'me'.

ALSO, and by the way, ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT EVEN ASSUMING what 'you', AGAIN, CLAIM HERE.

Get back to 'me' when either 'you' use MY 'words' CORRECTLY, or when 'you' CLARIFY with 'me' FIRST.

ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION.

NOT NECESSARILY SO, AT ALL.

WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

These are your words.

Group agreement and acceptance is your prerequisite for that which is not assumed,

NOT AT ALL.

Again, WHY would you ASSUME and SAY such a thing?

yet not only is this an assumption on your part but it is relying upon group assumptions where multiple people assume the same thing.

But this could NEVER be "an assumption on my part" because this is NOT "my assumption". This is YOUR ASSUMPTION ALONE here.

I NEVER said ANY thing at all that would even resemble such a thing as this. You have just JUMPED TO THIS FALSE CONCLUSION, which was based on YOUR PREVIOUS FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

If you would care to READ AGAIN the ACTUAL WORDS that I used, then you MIGHT SEE DIFFERENTLY.

You said, around post 11:

"ANY argument that uses words that are NOT "assumed" to mean some 'thing' but which are ACTUALLY AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED to mean some 'thing' IS an example of an argument which is NOT grounded in an ASSUMPTION."

This necessitates group agreement as truth and acceptance of the group as the assumption of the group.