Is there objective Truth?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an incredible claim.  Where does allah fit into that?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is there ultimate, immaterial, Universal, objective truth? Objective truth would not be persuaded by authority figures, but rather dictated by nature.

In other words, you're asking

"Is reality real?"

Why yes. Reality is indeed real.

In fact 'real' is an adjective and 'reality' is a noun used to describe the same concept.

[Sal]

Is there ultimate, immaterial, Universal, objective truth?

No.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Is there ultimate, immaterial, Universal, objective truth?

Then no.

Well spotted with that word slipped in!

[I_am_not_mafia]

@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.

They are not immaterial. Maths and Logic wouldn't exist without the human population. You are essentially arguing that language itself is immaterial but it requires material for it to exist. Whether it's written down, spoken or stored, it requires material.

Same with facts. Facts relate to material.

In fact anything relevant to the world and our lives is relevant to something material.

[I_am_not_mafia]

If the answer is no, isn't that an objective answer? 

Yes, there is objective truth.

If somebody says no, then yes it would be an objective answer, a self defeating one. See where i'm going with this?

You're not trying to do a Sye Ten Bruggencate on us are you? We've heard all these arguments before. They ultimately depend upon binary religious thinking and equivocation.

Binary religious thinking because it relies on there being either a conclusion of True or False and does not take into account something inbetween.

Equivocation because it relies on being vague with definitions, picking either laymen definitions and scientific definitions depending on which is most useful at the time. For example your definition of Truth. Truth is a concept. There is no True or False, these are part of the language of Logic. And fuzzy logic gets rid of it altogether. No theists ever mentions fuzzy logic when referring to the 'Laws of Logic'. This is because of binary religious thinking mentioned above.

[The Grand Nudger]

The equivocation over the term immaterial is more than likely unintentional, judging by the examples offered of immaterial things.  Set that against the false dichotomy presented earlier, in that the arguer believes that one of two things must be true; that mind creates matter, or matter creates mind.  It's clear that he's attempting to mount an argument against materialism, and feels that references to things like gravity are demonstrative.

We're getting a canned procedural, but the presenter has butchered it, notably by not realizing that gravity is -included- in materialism, and that the sort of immateriality he is referring to is colloquial, while the inferences he wishes to draw refer instead to philosophical immateriality.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The golden rule exists wether or not we are here to observe it.

We have no reason to believe that to be so.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You're inventing your own language and logic at this point, and go agianst what's already been established

... which were previously invented and are still evolving.

[robvalue]

All we can do is observe and model. The rest is really semantics.

So, I don't care really. I'm a pragmatist. I use logic that appears to be universally consistent, for as long as it is productive to do so. I use the best scientific models available. I don't worry about how accurate we are actually being, because we can never know that.

I certainly couldn't care less about any external being who feels they have some sort of ownership. It doesn't change anything.