On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:31:00 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > "Rupert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >> > On 18 Jul 2006 16:53:30 -0700, "Rupert" <email@example.com> >> > wrote: >> >> > Well perhaps talking about reasons people should believe in >> > mathematical axioms instead of demonstrating their truth isn't >> > evidence of a lack of good faith in your book but it is in mine. >> > >> >> 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. > >Thus Zick denies his own thesis of only needing to accept absolute >truths.