Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

[Vanguard]

In a recent exchange debating whether a belief in God can be justified on a rational basis Jester commented,

The thing that I don't understand, is the idea that a claim can be evidence for itself. How does self-evidence work logically? What determines the difference between a legitimate axiom and anything one happens to claim to be self-evident? If we have no logical process by which to determine the difference, then I do not see why we can call such beliefs rational. (see http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=390

Questions for the Christian community:

1) How does one determine whether something should be considered axiomatic?

2) What does it mean to say there is nothing that can logically be considered self-evident?

[Vanguard]

Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

The Truth when it's Time has Come.

Well, I may agree with you on that one though we are both preaching to a warm market. Do you have any proof your view would be the case?

[joer]

Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

The Truth when it's Time has Come.

Well, I may agree with you on that one though we are both preaching to a warm market. Do you have any proof your view would be the case?

[joer]

Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

The Truth when it's Time has Come.

Well, I may agree with you on that one though we are both preaching to a warm market. Do you have any proof your view would be the case?

I don't have any evidence. But sometimes the truth of the axiom powerfully resonates in the personal experience of an individual.

And the axiom is remembered when it strikes home within the individual. Or when one hears it, it resonates with the truth or as a the truth within them.

Thus making it a poignant reminder when that occurs.

In my mind the idea of "the truth becoming self-evident in Time" is recorded historically. One of the most common and easiest examples I can think of is the truth of the concept of "the Earth being Flat" being replaced in Time by the truth of the concept of "the earth being a Sphere." Both these truths were self-evident at the Time of maximum acceptance and practicality among the humanity of that time..

I think the self-evidence is not a measure of the actuality of the truth although it appears to be that at it's maximum point of self-evidency.

Self-evidency appears to be a truth's maximum point of acceptance as reality among the leading educated masses of humanity at a particular time.

It's the Time element and the gain or loss of a truth's acceptability that establishes it's self-evidency IMHO.

The yardsticks by which we measure truth change over time. We often have to wait for the proof of the Truth until our capability of measuring that truth is evolved.

I believe we touch on many truths here that we can't prove. But in time the acceptability of new mental constructs or the discovery new physical evidence will remove any of the current doubt of those truths existence.

But there's not enough acceptable proof now.

Like the yardstick of proof of the world being spherical was greatly improved by the New Yardstick of Magellan's circumnavigation of the world.

Before that emerging adherents of the truth of the spherical world were viewed with avid skepticism.

Now adherents to the old self-evident truth of the world being flat are viewed with the same avid skepticism.

That's why when I say:

Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

The Truth when it's Time has Come.

I think the Time element is critical to the authenticity of the Truth contained within that element of Time. And that's because of Our Evolution over Time. Our participation in both Time and Truth is understood even if not visible in the statement.

Blessings to you Van and Jester Mack and all here. Oh sorry Mack, It was the Holy Huddle Room I slipped, I mean Good Will to you and all our non-believers brothers and sisters here also.