Is there objective Truth?

[Angrboda]

Bollocks.  The use of objectivity is neither justified or established by a transcendant cause, i.e. God, anymore than it is by naturalistic explanation.  This seems to depend on an extreme form of the PSR, implying that everything must have an explanation.  It's trivial to define God as a lawgiver.  Such definitions come cheap.  It does not follow from an inability of a naturalist to justify their use of the objective that objectivity requires a transcendant cause.  That's an argument from ignorance.  Let's call a spade a spade.  You're arguing that the existence of objective facts requires God.  That's the most ludicrous assertion I've heard lately and is not supported by an argument from ignorance.

So digging through all the unnececary filler, your response is we don't need a explanation for everything is that correct?

No, my objection is that you're making an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion is invalid. Furthermore, you've yet to justify how God provides any better explanation for objectivity that is in any way superior to it merely being a brute fact. Goddidit! and Brute Fact have exactly the same explanatory value. Neither is superior to the other as an explanation for why there are objective facts.

[bennyboy]

I can answer that.  Objectivity need not be a world view.  It is simply a label which combines two things: 1) the belief that others exist; 2) the belief that there are things which are sharable among you and those others.

Objectivity isn't a world view, it is somthing we observe. Laws of logic, morality, uniformity in nature. If you don't subscribe to this than we have nothing more to discuss.

lolwut? Did you read the thing you just quoted? As for your threat that we have nothing more to discuss. . . pleeeeeese don't cut me off. Please please please please please I really want to engage in this stimulating debate. My life will be incomplete if you will no longer be willing to interact with me. Come on, dude-- give me a chance. Just one. . . more. . . chance.

[Soldat Du Christ]

So digging through all the unnececary filler, your response is we don't need a explanation for everything is that correct?

No, my objection is that you're making an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion is invalid. Furthermore, you've yet to justify how God provides any better explanation for objectivity that is in any way superior to it merely being a brute fact. Goddidit! and Brute Fact have exactly the same explanatory value. Neither is superior to the other as an explanation for why there are objective facts.

Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?

[GrandizerII]

No, my objection is that you're making an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion is invalid.  Furthermore, you've yet to justify how God provides any better explanation for objectivity that is in any way superior to it merely being a brute fact.  Goddidit! and Brute Fact have exactly the same explanatory value.  Neither is superior to the other as an explanation for why there are objective facts.

Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?

What justifies God?

[Angrboda]

No, my objection is that you're making an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion is invalid.  Furthermore, you've yet to justify how God provides any better explanation for objectivity that is in any way superior to it merely being a brute fact.  Goddidit! and Brute Fact have exactly the same explanatory value.  Neither is superior to the other as an explanation for why there are objective facts.

Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?

You seem to have a thing for justification, which is why I referenced the PSR. No, brute fact is saying that it doesn't depend upon something else, it just is by virtue of being what it is. For what its worth, objectivity is best justified through intersubjective validation. I fail to see how this situation is improved by inserting God. Regardless, you've yet to justify that objectivity requires a God, given that your main argument is a failure. And postulating that God is the source of objectivity requires more work than you've put in so far. You seem interested in gotcha arguments. However, your main gotcha is a bust. If you have another argument, or evidence that objectivity requires God, please present it.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?

You seem to have a thing for justification, which is why I referenced the PSR. No, brute fact is saying that it doesn't depend upon something else, it just is by virtue of being what it is. For what its worth, objectivity is best justified through intersubjective validation. I fail to see how this situation is improved by inserting God. Regardless, you've yet to justify that objectivity requires a God, given that your main argument is a failure. And postulating that God is the source of objectivity requires more work than you've put in so far. You seem interested in gotcha arguments. However, your main gotcha is a bust. If you have another argument, or evidence that objectivity requires God, please present it.

I already know you reject "binary thinking", you volunteered to follow along, so don't fall back to intersubjective validation. If you refuse to entertain the idea than so be it.

So you claim that it is self existing/ self justified? That's not exactly a justification. We could use that same logic and apply it to realy anything if we wanted to. We don't because there are more proper explanations for things.

[Angrboda]

You seem to have a thing for justification, which is why I referenced the PSR.  No, brute fact is saying that it doesn't depend upon something else, it just is by virtue of being what it is.  For what its worth, objectivity is best justified through intersubjective validation.  I fail to see how this situation is improved by inserting God.  Regardless, you've yet to justify that objectivity requires a God, given that your main argument is a failure.  And postulating that God is the source of objectivity requires more work than you've put in so far.  You seem interested in gotcha arguments.  However, your main gotcha is a bust.  If you have another argument, or evidence that objectivity requires God, please present it.

I already know you reject "binary thinking", you volunteered to follow along, so don't fall back to intersubjective validation. If you refuse to entertain the idea than so be it.

So you claim that it is self existing/ self justified? That's not exactly a justification. We could use that same logic and apply it to realy anything if we wanted to. We don't because there are more proper explanations for things.

What are these more proper explanations for things, and how do they fare in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation (qualities such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, elegance, parsimony, the number of predictions the explanation makes, its fecundity in terms of making predictions, etc.)? As noted, Goddidit is an explanation, but a rather poor one in terms of the qualities we look for in a good explanation; in that respect it is no better than, "it just happened." This is why I say it is no better an explanation than "brute fact."

[GrandizerII]

So you claim that it is self existing/ self justified? That's not exactly a justification. We could use that same logic and apply it to realy anything if we wanted to.

Like God?

[chimp3]

Is "Brute fact" another way of saying the brain justifies the brain? Or special pleading (neccecary precondition)?

Random mutation and natural selection "justifies" all brains. All life. Not that life needs any theists permission to exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think it's time OP got on with it.  Let's suppose there is objective truth.  Where does that leave us?

With truth that is truth.