BW: To some degree, you're fabricating a Straw Man: no mystic denies cause and effect, even if they assert that there is some supernatural cause for some effects. I don't think it's valid to assume that knocking down the Straw Man proves the merit of your arguments. Each of them may be "logically ridiculous", but that doesn't prove that the inverse is logically valid.
BW: This is a huge concession to opposing views: they're all opinions. You seem to be saying that assumptions don't require evidence or logic, they are merely postulates. To say that ANY postulate is as good as another is to *diminish* the value of any scientific worldview, which is dependent on objective evidence and logical consistency with reality. To say that all assertions are *mitigated* by arbitrary, unsupported assertions to the contrary is to deny the basis for all knowledge.
BW: You're overlooking the intermediate step, which is what science is all about: validation of hypotheticals. There may be logical consequences implicit in any assumption, but the only relevant *results* are a consequence of experiment and objective confirmation. Absent evidence and its logical interpretation, all views are just flat assertions.
Next: Consupponibility continued