Is there objective Truth?

[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.

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.

Asking why existence exists is not asking why A=A.  This is a wrong way of coining the question.

When we say something exists, we mean that it can be found to exist in the context of some framework.  For example, a desk exists in the framework of things people perceive in time and space.

If you look at the Universe which allows for the existence of the desk, and ask whether it, in turn, is part of some framework which establishes a context for the existence of Universes, then we do not have A=A.  We have set A1 as a member of set A2.

Since when we ask about existence, we are asking about OUR context-- either the existence of mind, or the existence of the Universe which we believe exists, what we REALLY want to know is if there may be said to be another, greater, context. Just insisting that our own context must be THE ONLY context is a pretty poor response to such a legitimate question.