Nope...that's not how I work, kat...I use 'criteria' for identifying assumptions.....and any criteria I use must themselves be in order and rendered as close to 'linguistically neutral' as I can make them first.

It is entirely possible that you..(and others) came to metaphysics without assumptions and inadvertently missed noticing that you were 'implictly' using unstated assumptions in various places....please understand that what I am saying is that certain claims and conclusions within metaphysics, when stated in certain ways, logically require and imply certain assumptions. It is not a statement about honesty or integrity, but about the very fabric of argument form.

You see what a tangled web this is to debate? It's like trying to make your friends ...or your kids ...understand that criticizing some of their behavior has nothing to do with judging their 'worth' or their motives.

In some of these debates, people pop in briefly, tell you "That's a crock of sh**!", make a few other disparaging remarks, and leave. They get MUCH less respect from me, even though we 'agree' on some things, than those I am debating.

I make an 'assumption'....that you, Amos, Little Hawk...etc, are honest, concerned folks who have had 'experiences' that you are trying to sort out and come to terms with. Why would I wear my poor, dyslexic fingers to the VERY bone..*grin*, debating with idiots who won't even pretend to listen to my side of it? I discuss & debate with folks I respect!...and when I get an inkling that they no longer respect ME, I quit.