Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

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.

Actualy she's not. Always apealing to absolutes, all the while rejecting the idea. There are NO consistent athiests.

[downbeatplumb]

Actualy she's not. Always apealing to absolutes, all the while rejecting the idea. There are NO consistent athiests.

That's a very broad statement for which suggests a lot of research. Or is that just something you said without actually finding out if it may in fact be untrue.
Oh that's right, your a Christian.

[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.

[bennyboy]

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.

Given that experience is our only interface with reality, and that everything we use to describe reality consists of ideas and nothing other than ideas, you've made an assertion which I do not believe you can demonstrate to be true.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Actualy she's not. Always apealing to absolutes, all the while rejecting the idea. There are NO consistent athiests.

That's a very broad statement for which suggests a lot of research. Or is that just something you said without actually finding out if it may in fact be untrue.
Oh that's right, your a Christian.

If you've ever made an apeal to objective moral values, or universal truths, you are not acting consistant. If i felt like digging around i know i could find examples of you doing just that

[Astreja]

If you've ever made an apeal to objective moral values, or universal truths, you are not acting consistant. If i felt like digging around i know i could find examples of you doing just that

Well, I for one do not think that there is such a thing as "objective moral values."  In fact, I think that it's a contradiction in terms and that "moral values" are always subjective.

[downbeatplumb]

If you've ever made an apeal to objective moral values, or universal truths, you are not acting consistant. If i felt like digging around i know i could find examples of you doing just that

Well, I for one do not think that there is such a thing as "objective moral values."  In fact, I think that it's a contradiction in terms and that "moral values" are always subjective.

Indeed morality is a very fluid thing. In some parts of the world it is the moral thing to do to kill your daughter for marrying for love and not giving in the to her dads demand for her to marry a fat fifty year old. And of course in Christianity it used to be moral to torture people back to the path of Christ "for their own good".

[Arkilogue]

@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.

What material is gravity made out of? A effect of space-time? Isn't it an effect of matter/mass and expansive dark energy is the effect of space-time?

You're losing your shine Tazzy.

[Whateverist]

Well, I for one do not think that there is such a thing as "objective moral values."  In fact, I think that it's a contradiction in terms and that "moral values" are always subjective.

Indeed morality is a very fluid thing. In some parts of the world it is the moral thing to do to kill your daughter for marrying for love and not giving in the to her dads demand for her to marry a fat fifty year old. And of course in Christianity it used to be moral to torture people back to the path of Christ "for their own good".

When I morally condemn the person who has just killed my loved one, I am not so much applying an objective definition as I am vowing to heap as much retribution on his sorry ass as I the legal system and my own ingenuity will allow.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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…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.

You seem to be saying that existence and essences must be alienable to be distinct, but that is not necessarily true. For all particulars both their existence and essences must be present together or not at all. Everything that exists has properties and everything that has properties exists. Anything that has no properties doesn’t exist. Anything that doesn’t exist has no properties.

At least one ontological argument (the 3rd Way of Aquinas) is based on the two very basic observations: 1) some things that could potentially exist don’t and 2) some things that actual do exist could cease to exist. It seems to me that denying that existence is a property is just a self-defeating way to avoid dealing with the theistic implications of it. Self-defeating because if existence isn’t a property then nothing could exist, could it?

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.

Right! That is true. Either the physical universe is part of a larger reality or it is the sum total of all reality. I think that atheists and theists both agree that the reason there is something rather than nothing is because some thing or things must exist of necessity. So the next question is this: what is the nature of something(s) that it (they) must exist by necessity? For that the physical universe simply doesn’t qualify because it goes from prior states of potential to subsequent states of actuality (as per the 1st Way of Aquinas).