Quote:
Originally Posted by utabintarbo  Your post is very pretentious in addition to being logically unsound.  |
But the site is logically unsound. Take this definition that you've been using, for example:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction. |
This is terribly confused and here's a quick proof:
(1) Let's assume this definition is correct and makes sense. (assumption)
(2) This means any argument in the follow form is invalid:
Quote:
p (assumption)
...
not p (conclusion)
|
(3) furthermore, it means that p itself is an axiom!
(4) So, let's apply this to reality. Take Euclid's famous proof of the infinitude of primes. It follows that the proof is falacious.
(5) furthermore, it follows that "There are a finite number of primes" is acually an axiom!
(6) This line of reasoning is increasingly ridiculous.
(7) Therefore the original assumption (1) is false (by reductio ad absurdum)
QED.