On 7 Aug 2006 20:43:42 -0700, "Rupert" <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 4 Aug 2006 17:13:54 -0700, "Rupert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >> So does anybody care or are we just gonna rely on faith based axioms? >> >> >People do care. I've *told* you where to find discussions of how to >> >justify the axioms. I may do some work myself on the problem at some >> >stage. If you have some doubt about the axioms, you are welcome not to >> >accept them. >> >> Not exactly what I was asking, sport. The question concerned my >> alternative to faith based axioms. > >First I've heard about this alternative of yours.
Probably for no better reason than you can't read any better than you can count especially since the message you replied to included the alternative and supporting rationale.
>Anyway, your statement is false.
Oh goodie. I'll go home now.
> The question was not about *your* >alternative, but about *any* alternative,
I believe the actual question was about any true alterative.
> and I maintain that there are >alternatives, that we can justify the axioms.
Faith based axioms can always be justified with faith based beliefs. True axioms are more difficult to justify.
>> Apparently we'll just have to wait >> for your memoirs. > >You can wait for me to say something about it. Or you can look at the >references I suggested. Or you can go "buddum-buddum-buddum" with your >finger and your lip. It's all fine by me.
Faith based alternatives invariably appear fine by you. True alternatives are a little more demanding.