Philosophically speaking. Egoism would likely lead to a pretty crappy world. Practically speaking. Nature kind of automatically makes us Egoists. It's just that sometimes doing the selfish thing can also lead to helping someone. Most seemingly selfless acts are done with the expectation that the recipient would reciprocate the same act back on them if they ever needed it. I would also say that humans have a disposition for empathy so it would be impossible to truly hold this position without having exceptions to itself.
That's actually a really good question. If there are more than two options, they get loaded into the tautology. I'll show you.
Lets' as A or Not A. Where A = God created the universe A would only have God created the universe in it. and Not A would be every single alternative to that. So if B = Big bang created the universe and you said A or B. This would not be a tautology because it is not true and doesn't include every possibility. In cases where you have more than two options, it can sometimes make it difficult to prove the claim through self evidence. However, most claims with more than two options can also be reduced to more simple self evident claims and this could sometimes allow you to eliminate the possibilities on an individual level to make the bigger possibility easier to discover.
I'll try to make sure my responses point to your questions better. But I already started this one, so next time I'll use quotes. But try not to make your quote trees bigger than they need to be. If you're addressing one subject, just quote a piece of it and handle the whole subject off that quote so I don't run out of room in my message.
I am saying without knowing everything about it you wouldn't know the most important thing to acknowledge with your system in mind.
The important thing is that I know it's lightning. I can know it hurts me. I can know it makes electricity. I don't have to know anything about atoms to know those things. You're doing what's called a whole of the part fallacy (not the part of the whole. that's a different fallacy) where you say that the whole is unknown without considering that we can still know the parts.
I would ask for evidence if I didn't see. If I did see it I don't require evidence
Then you just accepted an identity truth based on self evidence. score one for me. I'm cool with that even if you don't want to call it self evidence. I care more about you using a good standard more than what I care about you naming it a certain way.
The first thing I would do is have a discussion on what ought I value for my axioms then we can have a talk about other things.
The very act of deciding what makes it in axiom makes it not an axiom anymore because you're placing another belief under it. Now your newly placed value becomes the axiom and you have to justify that value. That's why self evidence is better, it doesn't push the axiom in to the infinite regress.
A unicorn is a pink horse with a horn on his/her head.
I don't know where you got the pink thing from, but anyway. Okay and those things don't exist do they? If you want to put a fake horn on it then whatever, but you're missing the point. What if we both agreed that a unicorn was an all powerful being that shoots fire out of it's but and controls time and space and we both agree to it. Does that make it true? It would be true by definition, but it's not a tautology unless the definition is attached to something, so if you have no fire butt spitting unicorn to compare it to, then it's just an abstract fantasy and it's true under your worldview which is problematic for you.
Okay then I will be making axioms based on what I value and that is not contradictory.
Sure, then the value becomes the axiom. Now tell me how you justify the value? infinite regress again.
I will use axioms that are also reasonable.
How can you know if it's reasonable without a standard? You're just taking things that you already have evidence for and calling them axioms, why not just use the evidence?
So it is a fact that a blind person has senses but it doesn't matter about the value statement?
A blind person does have senses. They just have broken eyeballs. For you to even believe that somebody could be blind you'd have to first go outside of you mind and accept eyeballs as existing. They don't see "incorrectly" because they don't see at all. You can't do something incorrectly if you're not doing it. Thing that makes a sense "correct" is that it is sensing things. If you want to set a standard on it, then to say your sense is "incorrect" is really to say it's "inferior" which means that you're still seeing things mostly correctly with maybe a few of the details blurred. But the correctness of our senses is ultimately decided by what they're meant to do. If you eyes sees things they way it was designed, then it's seeing correctly.
What if I actually don't have the knowledge?
If you don't have the knowledge than you don't. But you do. I know you've seen lightning before, so you have knowledge of it. You're posing a hypothetical scenario that doesn't match your reality, so of course you're not going to know something if you make an example where you don't know it.
So when you have a standard you would be able to know if something is wrong or right?
You could say it's right or wrong in respect to the standard yes. There is no intrinsic right or wrong. "right" means that it fits a given standard and "wrong" means it doesn't. This applies to all words that assess values in a binary way. It's like Boolean logic that computers use.
