[FOM] Infinity and the "Noble Lie"

[joeshipman@aol.com]

In my previous post I asked Boucher:

can you provide an example of a statement which can be proven in ZFC, 
and cannot be proven without the Axiom of Infinity, but which (in the 
presence of the other axioms) does NOT imply the Axiom of Infinity? 
 
But this is too trivial as stated, obviously Con(PA) is such a 
statement. What I should have asked is,

can you provide an example of a statement whose proof requires the 
Axiom of Infinity, but which you regard as having a higher 
epistemological status than the Axiom of Infinity, and explain why you 
accord it such a status?

-- JS