(October 24, 2016 at 1:07 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:(October 24, 2016 at 1:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, my objection is that you're making an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion is invalid. Furthermore, you've yet to justify how God provides any better explanation for objectivity that is in any way superior to it merely being a brute fact. Goddidit! and Brute Fact have exactly the same explanatory value. Neither is superior to the other as an explanation for why there are objective facts.
Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?
You seem to have a thing for justification, which is why I referenced the PSR. No, brute fact is saying that it doesn't depend upon something else, it just is by virtue of being what it is. For what its worth, objectivity is best justified through intersubjective validation. I fail to see how this situation is improved by inserting God. Regardless, you've yet to justify that objectivity requires a God, given that your main argument is a failure. And postulating that God is the source of objectivity requires more work than you've put in so far. You seem interested in gotcha arguments. However, your main gotcha is a bust. If you have another argument, or evidence that objectivity requires God, please present it.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)