Is there objective Truth?

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course it predates everything, it is etched in all our hearts.

By godless natural selection and its name is empathy.

It doesn't predate everything. Nothing predates everything. Everything=the totality of all things. Everything= every thing. Every thing=existence. Existence is eternal, mindless, existent by definition, prior to the universe (unless we define that which existed before the universe to also be part of the universe... IOW if we define "the universe" to ultimately have no beginning and the big bang was its expansion rather than beginning.... then if "the universe"= existence then it has always existed) and nothing existed before it or before time ("before time" makes no sense). It's all matter and anti-matter or other kinds of matter or even if it's non-matter it's something (if you distinguish between physical and material things and can think there are things that are non-matter, for example) and if it's not it's not only nothing but there is no 'it' to be nothing (there can't be. Nothing can't be. Being nothing= not being something=nonexistence=absence) because that's what nothing is, absence rather than presence. And absence can never be presence. Something has always existed... otherwise it's not something.

[Edwardo Piet]

P.S. two of the most pseudo-profound non-questions ever to be asked:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Why does existence exist?

They're both akin the asking "Why does A=A instead of A=not A?" or "Why are bachelors unmarried instead of married?"

Nonsensically asked questions.

What the person is trying to ask is questions like this "Although existence always exists.... why did it expand into what we know to be the universe? Why was there a big bang? Why was there a great inflation? Why didn't existence remain either completely static or effectively static to such an extent that it was lifeless and stagnant to such a degree it would be indistinguishable from if it were completely static?"

If someone asks "Why does existence exist?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?":

My answer is "Start by asking a question that makes logical sense. Those questions are technically nonsense questions because they contain implicit contradictory presuppositions."

[bennyboy]

Alisdair, I can't agree with your objection. Discarding a question because it doesn't seem to have a ready answer isn't being "logical," it's simply avoiding hard questions.

The fact is that something exists, and we would like to know why this is so. This is neither rational or irrational-- it's just a product of a species that enjoys thinking about things.

[Soldat Du Christ]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

P.S. two of the most pseudo-profound non-questions ever to be asked:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Why does existence exist?

They're both akin the asking "Why does A=A instead of A=not A?" or "Why are bachelors unmarried instead of married?"

Nonsensically asked questions.

Alasdir Ham raises a common objection but fails to understand the significance of it. By hand-waving away the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, he or she, is by default asserting that the existence of the physical universe is a brute fact. He, or she, may not realize that this in turn entails a further assertion, that the universe must be as it is, since for it to be otherwise would require a prior cause, the one responsible for its existence.

Why does the universe have four forces, no more, no less? Why do the physical constants have precise values? More philosophically, how is it possible for physical objects to change while retaining their existence? In short it you arbitrarily remove the Principle of Sufficient Reason for one ontological question, you necessarily do it for all such questions. Why do pencils exist? Or lakes? Everything becomes a brute fact.

Alasdir also begs the question. The physical universe might not exist. Just ask Bennyboy. Maybe only sense data are brute facts that reference nothing objective.

[Neo-Scholastic]

 This is why I say it is no better an explanation than "brute fact."

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...
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 will find that Jor takes a pragmatic approach, i.e. that human reason is apparently sufficient without access to absolutes. For her, people will never know if the Principle of Non-Contradiction is actually true. She claims that our brains evolved to believe the PNC to be true, though it might not be. At least, she is consistent.

[Edwardo Piet]

Alisdair, I can't agree with your objection.  Discarding a question because it doesn't seem to have a ready answer isn't being "logical," it's simply avoiding hard questions.

That wasn't my objection. The question is a nonsense question and I added an alternative that wasn't a nonsense question.

The problem with asking "Why aren't bachelors married instead of unmarried?" isn't that it's a difficult "hard question", it's that it's a nonsense question. And "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the logical equivalent as it's another form of "Why does existence exist rather than not exist?" or "why is existence existent?" which is like asking "why does A=A?"... these are nonsense questions.

I provided the alternative question that makes actual sense.

[Pat Mustard]

What is truth?

Beauty is truth, truth beauty - that is all,
Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know.

Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn

[Edwardo Piet]

Alasdir Ham raises a common objection but fails to understand the significance of it.

No, you're wrong, it is you who does not understand. So seen as you start by rudely telling me I don't understand I'll directly tell you that no, it is you with the failing comprehension skills here.

If you want to question why existence is existent you need to realize that makes as little logical sense as asking why atheism is atheistic why colors are colorful why A=A... it's nonsense.

Existence is not a property. This is why the ontological argument for God is bullshit.

Asking why something is existent makes sense when asked about anything except existence itself. Asking why existence itself is existent makes no sense at all.

As I said, the question that people are trying to ask is why the universe began rather than existence just remaining stagnant. To ask why existence is existent makes no sense at all.

By hand-waving away the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, he or she, is by default asserting that the existence of the physical universe is a brute fact.

No I already dealt with that in my post. Either the universe is the totality of all things and existence itself or the universe came about through the totality of all things and existence itself.

You're completely ignoring the complexity of what I am saying. Clearly it is you who does not understand.

There is no problem with what the person is trying to ask when they ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" but the question itself is nonsense. I dismiss it because it needs to be rephrased better. To ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is to ask "Why is the totality of existence itself existent at all rather than nonexistent?" which makes no fucking sense at all because the totality of existence itself has to be existent otherwise we are wrong to call it the totality of existence itself. Phrase the question better. Ask "Why did the big bang happen rather than not happen?".

He, or she, may not realize that this in turn entails a further assertion, that the universe must be as it is, since for it to be otherwise would require a prior cause, the one responsible for its existence.

Okay you started by telling me I don't understand. You couldn't be more wrong. You're ignoring the complexities here.

I did not say the unvierse must be as it is.

See how I already dealt with this... notice the bolded and underlined section and the added part in square brackets:

It doesn't predate everything. Nothing predates everything. Everything=the totality of all things. Everything= every thing. Every thing=existence. Existence is eternal, mindless, existent by definition, prior to the universe (unless we define that which existed before the universe to also be part of the universe... IOW if we define "the universe" to ultimately have no beginning and the big bang was its expansion rather than beginning.... then if "the universe"=[the totality of] existence [itself] then it has always existed) and nothing existed before it or before time ("before time" makes no sense). It's all matter and anti-matter or other kinds of matter or even if it's non-matter it's something (if you distinguish between physical and material things and can think there are things that are non-matter, for example) and if it's not it's not only nothing but there is no 'it' to be nothing (there can't be. Nothing can't be. Being nothing= not being something=nonexistence=absence) because that's what nothing is, absence rather than presence. And absence can never be presence. Something has always existed... otherwise it's not something.

Alasdir also begs the question. The physical universe might not exist. Just ask Bennyboy. Maybe only sense data are brute facts that reference nothing objective.

You don't understand and you're not even spelling my name right. I notice that your reading of the rest of my posts is equally myopic.

[Pat Mustard]

@Whateverist, do you not believe that non material things exist? For example gravity? Mathematics? Laws of logic? Truth is fact, by definition. Do you not believe in facts? These are all in fact immaterial.

Gravity is material, it is an effect of the nature of space time. Mathematics is a system for describing material items and events. Logic is a system of thinking, which is a property of the material brain, and the brain alone.

None of those things are immaterial, nothing that humanity has ever observed is immaterial.