Is it true you can doubt everything? Yes. That is a belief forced by the evidence. You can choose to doubt it. No problem with that. Is it true you doubt? Does it go on forever? Yes, can that be doubt? Yes. It goes on to infinity. Can that be doubted, yes. Are Christians a fanatical cult yes. So you see who has the problem here. Faith (choosing to believe something) has no place in philosophy. [Bold face mine.] — Gregory

We seem to have come round to my statement: "Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth?"

Nice chatting with you. Gotta go now.

No, everything can be doubted, even non-Euclidean geometry. Why does doubt scare you? — Gregory

Curiously, I sit here not feeling scared at all. I've no problem with doubt. It has its place. There are even times when it doesn't, as when I'm in the middle of the street with a car bearing down on me. I do not, as a rule, take time out to doubt its existence and wonder, if it is actually real, whether it will hit me.

Regards.

Nothing can be prove in philosophy in the sense of a Aristolean deduction. I don't trust Christians philosophical intuition at all — Gregory

[sic]

There are basic structures in philosophy which can be agreed upon as the basis for further discussion. These can be thought of as axioms, similar to those found in, for example, Euclidean geometry. To simply deny proof of anything negates the need, or even a purpose, for discussion. Regards.

Is it not a raison d'etre for philosophy to seek and discover the truths, if any, underlying beliefs? If one starts, a proiri, with the belief in a god informing his/her reasoning, where lies truth?

There appear to be two streams of conversation here. The first is generally of the nature of that found among historians. The second is perhaps philosophical, but seems free-floating. It's not grounded in an agreement as to just what is being discussed/disputed. A step backward would take us to 'Is there a supreme being?' and a further step back would arrive somewhere near 'How can we know something?'

I'm but lately come to this discussion. Fact is, I've just confirmed my 'membership' in this forum. I've picked this as the first thread to read, primarily because Dr. Douglas Hofstadter's delightful book, Godel, Escher, Bach is one of my 'desert island choices.

That said, I sense a lack of clarification between mathematics qua mathematics -- that is, a system for dealing with the concepts known as numbers -- and the discussion of mathematics; metamathematics, if you wish.