In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >If you could demonstrate them, as opposed to merely give good reasons > >for believing in them, then they wouldn't be called axioms. You have to > >start somewhere. > > Of course. The difference is that it would be nice to start with > something true instead of something just assumed to be true.
If wishes were horses. beggars would ride.
I don't > know what the etymology and exact meaning of "axiom" are but I see no > special reason axioms should be inherently undemonstrable except that > the process of sylllogistic inference provides no mechanism for > demonstrating the truth of premises except in terms of more elementary > premises. Which just regresses the assumption of truth to the more > elementary premises.
Until Zick, or someone else, can provide a way of finding a basis for everything in absolute truths, one has to start with some collection of premises. In mathematics such ur-premises are collectively called an axiom system.