Is there objective Truth?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're claiming to do what nobody else has been able to do, please enlighten me

Is enlightening you what no one else has been able to do, lol?  I doubt I'll succeed there either. I see you're still doing the ad naus thing. It's an attempt at proof by assertion, numbskull, an informal fallacy. If that's how you intend to make your case, then you've already failed.

[bennyboy]

Naturalism lacks a justification for the use of objectivity not making shit up.

FIFY

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe I a bit confused about how people are using terms. Philosophically, I think of objects as those things whose existences are not contingent upon people's opinions about them. Following this, objectivity simply means deriving knowledge from such objects. I’m not sure what objectivity per se has to do with whether something is considered natural or supernatural.

The distinction, supernatural versus natural, seems entirely arbitrary based on the scope of what people consider possible based on their current understanding of the way the world works. For example, regardless of what people believe about the results or lack thereof in psi contemporary research, it is generally understood that IF psi phenomena are real then it would mean our current understanding of physics is lacking. IF as a consequence of recognizing that deficiency, scientists up-dated our physics to incorporate psi phenomena, it (psi) would no longer be considered supernatural. Psi would then be entirely natural. It should be remembered that in his time, Newton was roundly criticized for the theory of gravity. At the time, everyone believed that things had to bump into each other to causally interact, so the idea that spatially separated bodies could influence one another was considered supernatural.

So while this thread is interesting, I think two parallel conversations are intermingling to the detriment of both. SDC talks about how naturalists can count without having an explanation of how counting is possible. This is the Problem of Universals. It has nothing to do with whether, for example, NDE accounts describe real events, psychic mediums can speak with the dead, remote viewing is possible, or (going further back) whether Jesus walked on water.

[Mister Agenda]

If we poor limited benighted mortals can figure something out, how supernatural can it be? By definition, the supernatural is beyond scientific understanding and defies physics. Figuring out something once considered supernatural isn't claiming it's natural, it's observing that it's natural. If science can understand it, it was once improperly classified as supernatural and now properly classified as natural.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, my understanding of the difference between natural and supernatural has nothing at all to do with possibility and isn't even remotely arbitrary.  It's possible that supernatural things exist.  Possibility is a low bar.  My understanding of the difference revolves around whether or not something can be explained by reference -to- the natural.  The tendency to assign things to one of two categories, to -perceive- something to be supernatural (like gravity, for example)...imo... boils down to our noted and common logical ticks, to preferring dichotomy over uncertainty.  We seem to instinctively exclude a third category when we make such attributions.  To me, the natural simply refers to your everyday shit, the unknown is unknown, and supernatural is something that exceeds the everyday shit.  

To use your other example, psi, if it did exist..and we ended up explaining it by reference to some ability that a human body had that would, ofc...make it natural.  It was always natural...at some point it may have been unknown, but it was never supernatural.  Now, in fairness, I do suspect that supernatural as we use it is an empty set....but hey, I can't prove that, so it remains a possibility.  I just don;t think it;s a good idea to use the supernatural as a trashcan to dump everything we don't know or can't currently explain with confidence.  

If someone want's to discuss the supernatural...find me some supernatural to discuss, not the unexplained...the -inexplicable-. The difference is subtle, but important.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My understanding of the difference revolves around whether or not something can be explained by reference -to- the natural...To use your other example, psi, if it did exist..and we ended up explaining it by reference to some ability that a human body had that would, ofc...make it natural.  It was always natural...at some point it may have been unknown, but it was never supernatural.

Don't you think, to use supernatural as a pejorative, as most hard-line skeptics do, only to later reverse one's self as if it were an innocent mistake is a bit duplicitous? It seems to me that when hard-line skeptics describe something a supernatural they do so as a means to ridicule any possible evidence and remove it in advance from serious consideration. For example, why does the term 'debunked' get slapped on only some negative research results. For example, Dean Radin gets 'debunked' while Freud was simply mistaken even though looking back his work (Freud's) was pretty much classic psuedo-science.

[The Grand Nudger]

That the supernatural is a pejorative has to do with the way the proposers have used it - to restate my opinion...a trashcan.  Not my problem. If they want to be taken seriously, by me specifically, they need to up their game. Bring me something inexplicable, not something that's unexplained..and definitely not something that -is- explained...whose explanation they just don't believe in "for reasons".

If you want to characterize that as duplicity, go right ahead. I couldn't care less, worse has been insinuated and implied. I;m not interested in defending frueds debunked psuedo-science, so it has no relevance to me. Take it up with whomever you've found that is interested in doing that. Dean Radin is a charlatan, in his case we're not even discussing something unexplained, let alone inexplicable.

[Soldat Du Christ]

"Repeatedly claiming things like "naturalists have no basis for objectivity" DESPITE ANY AND EVERY EXPLANATION TO THE CONTRARY is what's know as an argument ad naus. Don't worry, you'll get it eventually."

I hoped you would give me a justification, you havn't. Still want to have a go at it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I already did, and we've already had this discussion.  Obviously, repeating myself won't stop you from repeating yourself..or you'd have stopped repeating yourself by now. You realize that your reponse above is simply another form of the same fallacy I just described..right? It will never be anything else, it will never turn into a "good argument" no matter how many different ways you say it, no matter how many times you say it...it will forever remain the failure it was at the outset.

Further, it wouldn't matter if it -were- true, because no amount of someone else being wrong will make you right. That's just not how it works. If a naturalist -doesn't- have an explanation for something, that doesn't mean that the "correct" answer defaults to your own. You have to make your own case. Your entire line of "reasoning" is fundamentally unproductive, and uninformative.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Naturalism lacks a justification for the use of objectivity. They can count, but cannot account for there counting. So are just as capable of finding truth. The issue with not having a reason to comform to objectivity, it makes you free to bend and twist the truth according to your prefrence. Morality is a perfect example of this effect, and you can see it's negetive effects on society. But that may be straying off topic, you pretty much got it.

I was actually going to include the part in bold in my reply but decided not to, which was a mistake on my part. Regardless, I'm glad that I've understood you for the most part. 

Now, as far as "human sense making" goes, would you agree that this decition is the ultimate axiom? Can we agree on that much?

I'm afraid not, sir. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond to me and to understand me.  I hope that you feel that I've extended the same courtesy to you, sir.