Truth is the adequation of thought and reality.
Do you agree?
If that's the definition you want to go with for your argument, feel free.
Now try to explain how your reasoning (I'm using the term generously) in post #56 accords with your above definition. While *specifically adopting the premise that materialism was true*, you claimed that between the two thoughts, "materialism is false" and "materialism is true", that "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other."
Care to pull the other leg now?
By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
As I said before, "nice try". That was when you started waving your hands and asking, "what is truth?".
Do you agree?
Don't look at me, the subject is the definition of "truth" that *you* were working from when you made the line of argument in post #56.
But by your own chosen definition of truth, you not only don't get yourself off the hook for post #56, you actually set the hook deeper.