Oookay...
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.
Nonsense -- it is entirely possible to point out that *your* definition is or is not logically consistent with your argument, whether I agree with the definition or not.
[Ich. wrote:] 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?
[Aqu. wrote:] This is why we need to define terms.
You already defined your term (post #109). And I pointed out that by your own definition, your argument in post #56 falls flat.
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.
Fine, but that's not where the fault lies in your argument, so don't try to divert attention over to another point entirely.
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.
Once again, I must point out that this claim of yours is unsupportable, *even* using (in fact, *especially* using) your own chosen definition of "truth".
Let me try it again in small words, maybe you'll grasp it this time: By your own definition of "truth", if "we live in a strictly material universe", then there most certainly *IS* a "basis for determining the 'truth'" of the "contradictory statements" (A = "materialism is false", B = !A = "materialism is true"). And that basis is the observation that B ("materialism is true") is the one that "adequates thought and reality", whereas A ("materialism is not true") doesn't.
Piece o' cake.
So by what bizarre thought process do you conclude that there would be "no basis" for resolving which one was true and which was not?
Yet we live in a universe where we can know with certainty that two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
Thank you, Mister Obvious.
[Ich. wrote:] By your own definition of "truth", only *one* of those assertions is true, and the other is plainly untrue.
[Aqu. wrote:] Precisely.
Thank you. So stop making bizarre statements like "Neither assertion can be more or less true than the other" or "necessarily there would exist no basis for determining the 'truth'" -- they're just foolish.
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.
[Ronald Reagan voice:] "There you go again..."
One. More. Time. By your *OWN* definition of truth, there most certainly *IS* a basis by which to judge "whether any statement conforms with reality". Not surprisingly, the method is *comparing* it with reality.
Okay, fine, I'll bite: How does this differ from the way that "moderate realists" determine the truth of a statement? If someone says "the sky is blue", do you a) read the Bible in the hopes that it has made a declaration on the topic, b) wring your hands and declare "this can be neither more nor less true than the statement that the sky is not blue", or c) do exactly what any materialist would do and go out and *look* to verify whether the sky is or is not actually blue in order to determine the veracity of the declaration?
In short, praytell, how does your allegedly non-materialist reality resolve things any differently than the materialist version (which you declare is unworkable)?
The definition of truth is not tangential. Logically, terms must be defined before logical propositions can be made and reasoning can proceed.
Then maybe you should have defined them *before* you used them, instead of *after* I had identified the flaw in your "logic" and you were hunting for some side issue to quibble about in order to avoid having to go "oops".
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?
Yawn. Yet again you are attempting to place *your* failure to accord *your* argument with *your* own definition in *my* lap somehow. I'm not going to let you do it.
*Your* argument is inconsistent and flawed. It remains so no matter *what* definitions I may personally prefer, and your badgering is simply a red herring.