You are right Tim, we can assume that either axiom is correct. In fact it
has been done in history. Most religions assume that there is something
more than there is. They call it God. She is full of contradictions
(loving but allowing atrocities etc.).
>I have no doubt that these are your axioms. And I give them *exactly* the
>same weight as a Christians axioms: 1) God exists. 2) God works in
>peoples lives.
>
>Now, just because you have this nifty set of axioms, why should I think
>yours are any more valid than the Christians?
With axioms there is no proof. It's one's choice to believe one way or another.
This is a very enlightening discussion. I was thinking kind of your way:
with axioms you can't really disprove them. You can either believe that
there is something more, something more important than reality -- or not.
The role of God can be also played by one "Chosen Nation" or "proletatiat"
and we get religions and... you know what.
(1) It is creative to assume that there is more than "reality" in a sense
"what we currently know about reality". It is still within A=A paradigm, as
when new things are discovered, they become added to our "reality".
(2) There is nothing harmful in assuming that there is something more than
reality, something we are not capable of knowing as long as you are
consistent in the assumption that we are not capable of knowing it. Period.
It does not seem to change anything in our lives.
(3) The harm comes when you claim we "can't", yet "some of us", "somehow"
can. People seem to have a built in mechanism to long for this kind of
"unknowable" which can be known. God, Chosen Nation, Dictatorship of the
Proletariat, Nirvana, Level-3 -- are just few examples.
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159