In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:31:00 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > "Rupert" <email@example.com> wrote: > > > >> Lester Zick wrote: > >> > On 18 Jul 2006 16:53:30 -0700, "Rupert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >> > 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. > > Thus Virgil denies his own assumptions of truth. The only "truth" I have assumed is that one does not get something for nothing. And my justification for that assumption is largely justfied by Zick's failure to make good his claims otherwise.