A proposal about the creator

Hi Dr. Bill, would love to help, but not sure of the question. Can you clarify?

In overview, I answered the question by stating a belief as an axiom, but followed up with unsupported speculations of correlations/consequences that might be usefully critiqued vis-a-vis fallacious content.  Did the link show the whole answer I had written there?

Links to the main question... had to search for your answer. So are you justified in one you believe as axiomatic? It appears you stated two claims: 1) the idea of a generic, impersonal force the "predated" the universe and 2) that life continues after death. Is that accurate?

As I see it, an axiom is a base a foundation.  In this case, it may have no further value except to me, although I did present some thoughts that might be consequential for you and LF subscribers to consider and critique. 1) Yes, that's the axiom.  FWIW, I have no more idea of "predating" than you and can't defend something about "time" "before" time we can measure or at least rationally estimate. 2) As I conceive it, "life" is the continuum, from which a portion may be borrowed and to which it returns after it's no longer sustained in its physical form.  I do not assume there's a coherent pattern (personality?) that "survives" and do not picture meeting my dead sister "on the other side".

I have no issue with those positions or beliefs, but I am still not sure what you are calling an axiom. An axiom is something that is self-evident (as you know... but I say this for readers). Clearly, there is a level of subjectivity in what is or is not an axiom.

Clearly.  "Self-evident" is a matter of perspective or inflatus (divine or otherwise), and it (calling it an axiom) may be no more than deciding to think a certain thought and put anchors under it.  It may not be "self-evident" (a result of a test), but a presumption.  The rest of my answer was an effort to build a self-consistent set of ideas.  

For others, and not that I can point to an equivalence, when Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", he started with the axiom that "he" thought and was not simply a mass of chemicals undergoing changes.  It may be that his conclusion was simply a restatement of his axiom, the presumption that "I" had the authority to recognize itself.

[To DrBill]

Isn't Descartes's axiom supposed to be an axiom in the sense of something which is self evident? It wouldn't make sense for others to give the critique that it isn't an axiom if that meant as a starting point for discussion. It's a bit confusing if you make comments like this, but then when I respond that it isn't an axiom you just say it is with no supporting case. After all you clearly knew what I meant by not an axiom, so that was a bit uncharitable to not expand on your response. 

Which reminds me of you replying to an answer of mine with "It does not serve logic to define the outcome of a political process as you seek to do.  Read Hayek" and then not explaining what you're talking about. If you're going to make a bizarre comment out of the blue you could at least explain yourself.

It is not an axiom and by claiming there is no test to refute it you are shifting the burden of proof to the non claimant who has no such burden. Actually an unsubstantiated claim which cannot be tested for is about as far from an axiom as you can get.

You said something towards the end about taking surcease; I don't understand what you mean by this, as surcease means to stop something.

Brian, it's an axiom.  I do not have to defend it, nor am I using it or even trying to use it, to convince you.  "Surcease" in the context refers to ceasing existential angst ("why are we here and where are we going").  It is meant to imply comfort, "whatever gets you through the night".

[To DrBill]

Perhaps you would care to define axiom as you are using it, because by my understanding of the word it most certainly is not an axiom, it's a baseless assertion. 

I really don't get why you would come here asking whether it is an axiom or whether it's just an opinion, and then when pointed out that it's not an axiom just state that it is and that you don't have to defend this claim. So where I said perhaps you'd like to define, clearly you wouldn't as you're ruling out any discussion. What a pointless post.

When "axiom" is used interchangeably with "self-evident", we can run into arguments about what, and to whom such assertions may apply.  It may be you've chosen that meaning and on that basis my assertion fails, but I now assert I would not have presented the question with that meaning.

Another meaning is "postulate", and dictionaries vary as to the priority (Wordnik/American Heritage puts it in third place, while Merriam-Webster puts it first, as does the longer article in wikipedia, though they waffle a bit imo "An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.[4]"

The [ ] numbers are to references in the article.  My repeated assertion that my axiom was an axiom is meant in the [4] sense.

Moving on to address the point of the question, having said explicitly what my axiom is, the discussion I hoped to engage was whether the other comments I included in the original answer (they might be corollaries) were logically presented.  They need to be examined in the original link despite the annoyance (for which I apologize) that it was to the question and not to the answer as I hoped/expected.

My view is to ask that the postulate be allowed, "for arguments' sake".  

I can't help noting that a philosopher I have some regard for, Will Durant, suggested that philosophy not be undertaken by one below 40.  I am well over the lower limit.

In 4 BC, Greeks would state axiomatically that parallel lines never intersect. This is Euclidean geometry, but Reimann geometry has different axioms.

[To DrBill]

Wouldn't you be better starting off by saying "As an axiom" and then giving your premise for discussion? To me, to make a bold statement and then say this is an axiom, the emphasis is on the word is. That may be a problem with my comprehension, but in the context of what you just said, I'm struggling to read it that way. You should be able to infer the context from the surrounding text after all. 

You use the words "there is" and "it is", this reads as an emphatic statement and not a tentative proposition for discussion. And it read doesn't read as a proposal for discussion at all, if anything using words like "unknowable", " no test to refute it" and "I won't argue with anyone" appear to close the door on a discussion. 

So the way it was put under an assertion it reads like you're saying that it's something which is generally known and accepted, and the whole thing is worded to discourage discussion. Thanks for your explanation but by that definition I'm still going to go with not an axiom. 

With regards to your disguised ad hominem, I wish I was under 40, and if I were that would be arrogant and rude (and given that you thought I was under 40 I guess it was) as well as being irrelevant. 

Okay, so looking at this further the definition you're using is something used in modern logic. It's a proposition which is the starting point, not for a discussion, but for subsequent logical statements. Whether the statement is empirically true or not isn't relevant, only what happens if the statement is true. 

So that seems like I'm clear now, but when I look at Merriam Webster it says:

: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference :

POSTULATE sense 1

one of the axioms of the theory of evolution

Based on the modern logic definition I'm reading that as argument being a statement of logic, however I don't see how the example fits with that. 

So an axiom regarding the theory of evolution could be that natural selection occurs. It cannot be proven to occur, but it is accepted that it does. I've seen it stated that it's falsifiable, but I don't think it is, so I guess that is an axiom?

I don't think that your assertion fits with this definition. Accepted as true would imply that others agree to accept it, not that you declare that it is to be accepted for the purposes of your argument. And you didn't then have an argument, even stating that you won't argue it, but rather just asserted it and then said that it makes you feel better (no judgement). 

I think hypothesis (not in the scientific sense) would be a more apt term, unless I'm missing something, which is more than possible. I have trouble holding information and conceptualising things due to an old head injury, so have to look at things like this over and over to try to grasp it.