> >Who says that any mathematical axiom systems are "faith" based? > > Anyone who believes in axioms and uses syllogistic inference to > demonstrate theorems drawn from those axioms.
On the contrary, those are precisely the people who would deny that it is "faith" based. > > >All mathematical axiom systems that I am aware of are chosen on the > >basis of what can or cannot be deduced from them, which is a good deal > >too empirical a standard to be miscalled "faith" based. > > The demonstration of theorems through syllogistic inference is not > faith based but the choice of axiomatic assumptions is because the > only choice is whether one believes them or not.
On the contrary, the choice of a set of axioms depends not on whether anyone believes in the axioms themselves, but on whether one find the consequences drawn from them to be useful.
> > >Absolute unconditional truth, if it exists at all in Zick's sense, is > >part of metaphysics, not math. > > Of course it is. That's how we define and demonstrate the nature of > reality. And faith based math
Since existence of any "faith based math" is an assumption of Zick's made without any evidence, it is a faith based assumption.