[Hank Kerchief]

Aristotle made it clear that there are undemonstrable first principles, a feature common to both philosophy and religion.

If you mean axioms, "existence exists," "we are conscious and existence is what we are conscious of," and "a thing is what it is, or A is A," they are demonstrable. Since they are axioms, not derived concepts, because there are no more basic concepts from which these could be logically deduced, they cannot be logically proved, in the usual sense, because logical proof pertains only to derived concepts. The axioms, however, cannot be denied without producing a logical contradiction, because all logical proof depends on them, and they are implicitly assumed in all other knowledge or logical statements.

As for demonstrating them. if you are reading this, then you exist and what you are reading exists and you are consious both of yourself and what you are reading, and what you are reading is what you are reading and you are you. To deny any of these you must assume them in the denial, contra-hypothesis.

Now I copied WOSG to this response because he suggested the same commonly held mistake in Post #42:

My point is: All systems of belief require faith of some sort - even Science!

But sceince does not require any faith of the (just believe without reason) kind at all. The axioms are not assumptions, they are discovered rationally, and verified logically, by the very fact they cannot be denied without contradiction. They are the foundation of all other knowledge, including science.

Hank

[WOSG]

"The axioms are not assumptions,"

Er, what is the definition of an 'axiom' to you?
Is it not a logical assumption?
How do you "prove" logic if not without some *assumptions* about the laws of logic?

And how do you 'demonstrate' that "existence exists"?

You say: "As for demonstrating them. if you are reading this, then you exist" Do I? What does *I* mean? What is identity?

I am being argumentative, but with a point:

It is far from a mistake to recognize these as assumptions at some point, and to see that all purely logical propositions are of a nature of tautologies, and all other propositions about reality depend at some point on the empirical experience and the *assumption* that the empirical has some validity.

Even HUme discounted "Cogito ergo Sum" - can you prove your identity over time? Can you really say there is a "you", when your mind is a bunch of nueral firings?

[Aquinasfan]

But science does not require any faith of the (just believe without reason) kind at all.

Neither does good philosophy or natural theology.

The axioms are not assumptions, they are discovered rationally, and verified logically, by the very fact they cannot be denied without contradiction.

But strict scientism or materialism is self-refuting because it is internally contradictory. It claims truths but undercuts the logical possibility of acquiring any kind of certain knowledge.

Moreover, any argument for strict empiricism must be a philosophical argument, not an empirical "argument." In fact, an empirical argument for empiricism is logically impossible.