I’m trying to distill this argument to a more syllogistic form to aid in its potential refutation. Perhaps you can assist me.
This paragraph would appear to contain the conclusion, that “truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality”.
The mention of the possibility of subjective truth appears to be an auxiliary case, not fundamental to your argument but supporting of it.
This paragraph suggests that counter arguments are regularly invalid - thereby at least supporting your position if not proving it.
So you do not subscribe to the idea that “value requires an intellect”, and go on to clarify that minds would at least need to be human in order to value in such a way - an auxiliary supporting point once again.
Is this premise intended to set up a proof by contradiction? That value requires intellect?
Is this the second premise? That so-called serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations?
Is this meant to be counter to the premise that value requires intellect?
The rest appears only to be a qualification of any possible associations with theism.
It seems that here we attempt the argument:
P1) no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists
P2) (supposed) objective consideration requires this
therefore it is not objectively the case that there is no mind capable of imposing value into reality
Here valuation heavily privileges objective criteria over subjective, as though objective valuation is the primary criterium, which of course is circular: if you presume objective truth and value, and require objective truth and value in order to disprove this, then of course you are “begging the question”.
So in conclusion, I do not see a valid syllogism that shows contradiction through:
- value requires an intellect
- serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations
to - truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality