(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:(October 24, 2016 at 2:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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 were the one who proposed that there are better explanations than brute fact, it's up to you to provide one. Again you're operating from a principle which states that they have an explanation and that explanation is God. So far the only evidence you've put forward for this proposition was an argument from ignorance which failed. If you think God is a good explanation for objectivity, then show it. Don't whine about what I haven't provided.
(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 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.
Morality is not objective. Add this to the pile of things for which you need some evidence.
(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 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".
You have a lot of assumptions about how I should behave. I accept logic provisionally. You'd do well to spend more time proving your claims than opining about what I do.
(October 24, 2016 at 9:44 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 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.
You've lumped many things together not all of which belong together. I'll accept that logic is objective for the sake of argument. I don't agree that morality is objective, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. How does that get us to God? What role does God play in this?