>>45
>>46
>>47
The problem is: There is a difference between recognize that something is a objective truth and the ability to explain why.

I got you anon. The assumption of a given set of axioms seen to be arbitrary. Most likely, it is.
But at the moment you accapt the premisses, you can see that the theorems follows.

In my opinion, neither the theorems as such nor the axioms are objective truth but the inferencial relationsship between them, defined by logic.

I mean, that 1+1 equals 2 is a statement, everyone accapt as a given truth.
With the same regor, you can come to more weird inferences. Why should you doubt them?