Is there objective Truth?

[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.