(October 24, 2016 at 2:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 24, 2016 at 1:31 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: I already know you reject "binary thinking", you volunteered to follow along, so don't fall back to intersubjective validation. If you refuse to entertain the idea than so be it.
So you claim that it is self existing/ self justified? That's not exactly a justification. We could use that same logic and apply it to realy anything if we wanted to. We don't because there are more proper explanations for things.
What are these more proper explanations for things, and how do they fare in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation (qualities such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, elegance, parsimony, the number of predictions the explanation makes, its fecundity in terms of making predictions, etc.)? As noted, Goddidit is an explanation, but a rather poor one in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation; in that respect it is no better than, "it just happened." This is why I say it is no better an explanation than "brute fact."
I'd like to know what you think a more proper explanation looks like as well. The only possible answer is a trancedant cause, because of the impossability of the contrary. You see sombody else replied with "Evolution did it", but a natural explanations cannot possibly justify immaterial truths, for example the laws of logic, morality. And you can't say it's a social construct, because those are inherantly subjective.These are objective standards we observe. Even you yourself strut about making objective claims all the time, this is because we must pre suppose logic to be logical.
If you actualy lived by what you say you believe, you'd end every sentence with, "but i could be wrong".
Now you could deny objectivity, like you do. Or embrace objectivity, and refuse to agknowledge the only rational explanation, under the guise of, maybe we will find out one day.