easily be denied. While one must think, reason, and understand the world in a particular way, it does not follow, according to this analysis, that even the axioms have existence.The challenge then, is, "You must assume the axioms to prove the existence of the axioms; and although we agree that it is impossible to conceive of the axioms as not existing, how do you really know that these axioms really exist?"The challenge is an inappropriate question. It may sound odd to question whether a question is appropriate, but what I mean is this: If this question is allowed to stand, does the question itself rest on any ground? We may put the position of the opponent in this way, "It is so that we may not conceive an axiom otherwise, but it still may not exist." Well, this is certainly a conception. I do not think Kant or Russell would disagree with that. Yet, it is a conception which says ultimately that it is possible to conceive otherwise. It denies the necessity of the axiom not only existentially but conceptually as well. It is a conception that admits the necessity of the axioms in one breath, and denies their necessity in the next. Because if it is possible that something does not exist, then I can conceive otherwise. In fact, I just have the moment I uttered the thought coherently. So, which way would Kant and Russell want it? Either they say that they cannot conceive otherwise and that the thing exists, or that they can conceive otherwise and the argument that the ontological argument for the existence of God is wrong may be right or wrong. Denying the law of noncontradiction and its necessity in thought is not something Kant nor Russell were ever prepared to do. Yet, neither were they prepared for the absurd consequences of denying the existence of something they deemed otherwise necessary.So, the question of the existence of the axioms is not begged in my argument because the question challenging their existence is itself absurd. Denyi...
