I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

It exactly does not, since that very sentence and the meaning behind exists only in a subjective mind.

Whether stuff is subjective or not. We know from obvious sane experience that either something exists or it doesn't. And there can be stong evidence for whether something doe sor does not.

With no intelligence outside subjective minds, there can be no objective truth outside objective minds either,

That's going by 'objective has to be absolute' again. These are two different things. If everything is ultimately subjective then objectivity is 'merely' stuff like, strong scientifc consensus, etc.

If intelligent mind, then, is not the origin of reality either, then that logical order is so much less an integral part of reality, and so much more the result of brain chemistry.

Intelligent minds are the result of brain chemistry.

The law of noncontradiction/the excluded middle again. I've dealt with this in the very above post.

Yes, you are saying that if 'everything is subjective' then there is no objectivity so nothing is really true. But I am not arguing that, I am arguing that stuff either does or doesn't exist, but we all subjectivivly understand that with experience. We could believe that the above doesn't apply and either nothing exists or something can both exist and not exist, etc, etc. But that doesn't stop me from rationally believing it's insane.

I have learnt from experience like everyone else has. We can't transcend our own minds, we only know what we know. How could we do otherwise? So what? We understand and experience subjectivly, yes. So what?

To believe that stuff either does or doesn't exist, objectively is one thing. To claim to have absolute access to it is another. You would need evidence for that.

There can only be degrees of objectivity, if there is an outside actual objective standard of truth, it self distinguished from subjective viewpoints (since contradistinguishing subjective viewpoints with a subjective viewpoint does not lead to any degree of objectivity) with which to contradistinguish different subjective viewpoints to compare the degree of that objectivity present in them. I've already dealt with this and given many examples of what I mean in the above posts.

I don't see how the argument makes any sense. It seems entirely semantical.

People have different beliefs. So beliefs are a subjective matter. Some believe in objective truth, others don't. I believe that it is logical to believe that something, indeed, objectively - does or doesn't exist! And I require evidence to believe it does.

So where does subjectiity fall? You can say 'my view is no more valid than any one else's subjective viewpoint'...but wait, what does that even mean or imply? I beg to differ with my viewpoint

I believe with evidence because it is rational with my life experience on this planet ok? Yes it's my own - shocking! - experience on this planet. It's subjective. So what? I'm not going to be thinking for someone else...[b]literally[/i] in side their head! I'm not in their head! I can only do me. Obviously it's ultimately subjective, my experience, and what I believe. And one of the things I believe is, indeed - something either does or doesn't objectively exist. I consider this rational because of my own[i/] experience on [i]this planet. It's not going to be any one else's life that I'm living now is it?!

I don't see what your point even is. How does any of it apply to reality? Obviously my experience is subjective, it can't be otherwise. So my belief in whether truth is objective or subjective stems from that. There's no alternative to subjective because I am me.

No, he cannot go wrong if there is not an objective truth which which to contradistinguish going wrong from going right.

There never absolutely is one. Once again you use 'objective' as if it means exactly the same as 'absolute'. It seems as though you always use it that way.

and it is still only true insofar as you have defined it to be so, like someone defining 2+2=5 to be true, not true because it is actually true independently of what you define,

We cannot have access to absolute objective truth - you have only been defning objective truth in an absolute sense, which just doesn't exist in any way that has been demonstrated whatsoever, unlike subjectivity which is self-evident.

EvF