Resolved: In a deterministic universe, truth can exist

Because my rule dictates that I cannot respond to any of my opponent's points in my first speech, I'll wait until next speech. But I will combine the definitions that are the premise of this debate together Resolved: in a universe where every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by prior events, conformity to fact can exist. As much as I tried to avoid it by defining key terminology to begin with, I suspect there's going to be some sort of a definitions debate. But that's for later. >>>> My Case <<<<< I will be using the Correspondence theory of truth, as it best fits with the resolution. In a nutshell, the correspondent theory of truth says that a statement is true if it accurately describes reality. I. E. , if the relationship between the statement and fact/reality is one of conformity. With that said, I will go on to explain why truth cannot exist in a deterministic universe Contention 1 – propositions do not exist First, it is important to acknowledge that when we talk about whether or not "conformity to fact" exists, we must realize that the only candidate capable of conforming or not conforming with fact is a proposition. The only thing that could have a relationship of conformity to fact is a proposition. Thus, any universe in which conformity with fact exists requires the existence of propositions. No other type of discourse can conform to reality. The word "shirt" can't possibly conform to reality since nothing is proposed about the shirt to be true or false. At this point, it is important to note that any proposition made in a deterministic universe was caused solely by previous events. That is, given the circumstances that happened before the statement being proposed, the proposition could not have been different. In a sense, the proposer was "forced" to make the proposition by the events leading up to it. Also, it is important to note that when someone makes a proposition, he/she believes it, or believes it to be false. For example, if I say "this shirt is green", I believe this statement to be either true or false. But in a deterministic universe, this proposition is forced upon me by a totality of causality. What I believe about this statement, then, is also forced upon me. I could not believe anything else given previous events. My belief is not within my control. It is within the control of the totality of previous events only. But a forced belief is not a belief at all. you cannot force someone to believe in something. You can force them to pretend like they believe it, but it is ultimately not a belief to them. The very idea of a "forced belief" is contradictory. Thus, in a deterministic universe, genuine beliefs cannot exist. And because every time a person makes a proposition, she must believe something about it (that it's true or false), then a deterministic universe is a world without actual propositions. But if propositions are the only things that could possibly have a relationship of conformity to fact (truth), then a deterministic universe is a universe empty of this relationship, and so empty of truth. Contention 2 – propositions do not have conformity to reality Furthermore, even if propositions CAN exist in a deterministic universe, they do not have a relationship of conformity to fact. Consider the following example: Bob states that "the moon rotates around the earth". In a deterministic world, this would mean that Bob was forced to make this proposition, that the circumstances leading up to it "made" him do it. But since the circumstances led to the effects, a change in the circumstances would no doubt lead to a chance in the effects. If I changed the circumstances using the super engine that predicts all effects of all causes that the pro thought up, then it is conceivable that I would be able to change the circumstances in such a way that the result is that Bob thinks differently when he makes his proposition, but the moon still nonetheless rotates around the earth (my modifications might have resulted in the rotation pattern being different, but it still rotates around the earth nonetheless). Then when Bob makes his proposition that "the moon rotates around the earth", by changing the circumstances, I can make Bob say "the moon does NOT rotate around the earth", just by tweaking with previous events. But if I can change the side the proposition takes just by changing the causes, then we can see that whether Bob said "the moon rotates around the earth" or "the moon does not rotate around the earth" had nothing to do with whether the moon ACTUALLY rotated around the earth. The fact of the moon's rotation around the earth had no effect on what Bob's proposition would be. The degree of rotation might have, but the rotation itself did not. Thus, there is actually no relationship whatsoever between the proposition and the fact that was its object. A nonexistent relationship cannot be a relationship of conformity. And this is true regarding all propositions. Whenever a proposition is made, there is NO relationship between the proposition and the fact that is its object, because which side the proposition takes has nothing to do with the fact, but is forced by a totality of causes and effects. Thus, in the sense that a relationship between proposition and fact doesn't exist, a relationship of conformity to fact cannot exist, which means truth itself cannot exist in a deterministic universe.