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.
That's not just my opinion, that's reality. Do you have a different definition? If we can't agree on the definition of the terms it will be logically impossible to proceed any further.
Besides, science implicitly depends upon this definition. If you reject it, you'll be sawing off the metaphorical branch that you're sitting on.
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?
This is why we need to define terms. In reality, using the real definition of truth, that truth is the adequation of thought and reality, then two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
But if one assumes for the sake of argument that we live in a strictly material universe, then necessarily there would exist no basis for determining the "truth" of contradictory statements.
Yet we live in a universe where we can know with certainty that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Therefore, we do not live in a strictly material universe.
By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
Precisely. I'm NOT a materialist. I'm a moderate realist. The is a problem for materialists, because if everything is reducible to colliding atoms (which must be the case in their theoretical universe), then there would exist no basis from which to judge whether any statement conforms with reality.
As I said before, "nice try". That was when you started waving your hands and asking, "what is truth?".
The definition of truth is not tangential. Logically, terms must be defined before logical propositions can be made and reasoning can proceed.
So I ask again, how do you define truth?
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.
Why are you afraid to define truth? Do you believe that truth exists? Certainly you must since you're arguing with me. So why then are you so reluctant to define it?