Sorry guys, but the ball is in YOUR collective court.
According to the rules of forensics, I have met the obligation of the argument, stating it, then providing credible proofs. Just for the sake of making my position clear, here is another clip from MW's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
truth \ˈtrüth\ n
pl truths \ˈtrüṯẖz, ˈtrüths\ [ME trewthe, fr. OE trēowth fidelity; akin to OE trēowe faithful — more at true] bef. 12c
1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact
(2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(3) often cap : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true 〈truths of thermodynamics〉
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly Brit : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 god —in truth : in accordance with fact : actually
Now instead of your rhetorical whining about me not making the case, which I have, your forensic obligation is to
1) cite authorities that make the definitions above, and previously posted false.
2) then propose another, contrary thesis.
Until and unless you do this, you have no grounds on which to attack the axioms, for they flow from the posted definitions.
How on earth can either of you maintain that truth NOT these (and more)?
1,the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: