(December 25, 2011 at 3:40 pm)Perhaps Wrote: If you believe that the reasoning produced validity you are assuming it, that is my point, but if you can realize that it causes invalidity then you are not making assumptions.
That is how validity is determined. Something is valid if and only if it can be reasoned from a set of premises. If the premises are shown to be true, the argument must necessarily be true. The only possible assumption to be made here is assuming the premises to be true. In circular reasoning, the premises are not assumed to be true but reasoned out of the conclusion.
(December 21, 2011 at 4:36 am)genkaus Wrote: Either way would infer my hypothesis, though one route may prolong the outcome.
Can you give an example how the original line of questioning would continue once the person has answered "Because X said so.".
(December 21, 2011 at 4:36 am)genkaus Wrote: I agree, but I would still state that in order to believe something, it must be perceived, no matter if it contains the arbitrary property. This is a slippery statement for if it's true then it means that nothing exists if it is not perceived, but i'll leave it as is.
Nonsense. A lot of people believe in things they cannot perceive or which are by definition imperceptible. Other things may also not be directly perceptible but we believe in them because we perceive their effects. While belief and perception have some correlation, as they should, they are not perfectly aligned.
(December 21, 2011 at 4:36 am)genkaus Wrote: I agree with this response. My hypothesis, however, would still ask the question of 'why' to these axioms of the arguments, which would regress further to a discussion of the axioms on which the argument was based. This would regress until eventually the final axioms of existence are clarified, and those may not be proven.
You are confusing axioms with premises.
While they are similar in nature to the extent that arguments can be based on them, premises may be derived from other premises, whereas axioms, by their very nature, are underivable from any other. Axioms are, by their very nature, unprovable.
While you are correct that these final axioms of existence cannot be proven, it does not mean that we have to simply assume them to be true. They can be shown to be true by showing that even while trying to prove that they are false, you have to take them to be true.
