How to Assume

I think that's true. Wouldn't assumptions work like circular reasoning?

Let me explain using an intrinsic example:

Either absolute Truth exists, or it does not.
So we assume each possibility in turn, and see where each leads.

If absolute Truth does not exist, then we have an example
of something that is absolutely true: That absolute Truth does not exist.

This is of course, a contradiction, thus the other option is true:
Absolute Truth must exist, because
both possibilities lead to the same answer. 

So we assume each path in turn, then eliminate the paths
that lead to contradictions. Very often this results
in the default option being the only non-contradictory answer.

The same method can be used in empirical situations too,
not just purely logical situations.

In astrophysics we are told that black holes exist,
and they are defined such that nothing moving at
the speed of light can escape their gravity.
But we are also told by the relativists that
gravity moves at light-speed, and they claim
to know this because they claim to have observed
such gravity coming from black-holes.

So we assume their theory and observations might be true,
but we follow their logic through to the point of contradiction.
How can they claim gravity moves at light-speed coming
from black-holes when they have already decided that
nothing moving at light-speed comes from black-holes?

Their entire theory on black-holes is based on relativity
and gravity moving at light-speed.

Their theory on gravity moving at light-speed is based
on their theory on black-holes.

So both theories collapse due to the internal contradictions.

Assumptions thus mostly lead to negated claims, and
then we are left with default claims.

Which is true: atheist cosmology, or Theist Cosmology?

Well we have already proven that atheist cosmology
is based on proven contradictions.
More-over, their errors have been pointed out to them
time and again, but they refuse to acknowledge it.

Thus we are left with the default truth:
God exists, and atheists will lie through their asses
in denial of Absolute Truth!

Yes, but circular reasoning as a fallacy...is a fallacy because it is circular.  The fallacy is purely assumed.

If absolute truth exists, then that is all the question was meant to answer.
Does it exist or not?
You answer yes, thus all the rest of what you said was meaningless sophistry.

It does not exist when grounded in the axiom of All is relative.

This axiom negates itself though, meaning absolute truth exists.

However absolute truth necessitates relativity exists considering this is the ground in which absolute truth occurs (ie all is relative is an absolute statement).

But relativity, as self negating and void of any meaning, does not exist.  The negation of negation is a positive or the voiding of void is being.  So again a problem occurs as we are observing void (ie relativity), but relativity does not exist in an of itself.

So what is it?

It is One Absolute Observed through many fractions/fractals of the absolute where Absolute truth is both one and many and hence triadic.  Relativity, or void as mass both in the empirical sense of physics, the collective zietgiest, a mass of axioms, etc., is the observation of One Truth through many fractals/fractions. 

It is "nothingness" in nature, an axiom which is nothing in itself (prime triad law one), that inverts the One into Many through which we view reality approximately (as through a veil in intuitive or mystical terms much in the same manner dark matter as mass hinders the observation of a unified source of light).

Absolute truth is all in all or the conscious I am who I am dualism which is also, because of this dualism, observed relativistically.

Subjectivity and Objectivity are effectively One and the same truth.



And no, it is not meaningless sophistry...