Question:
Since there is an increasing number of tangents on different threads involving rather incredible claims of absolute truth, I thought I'd make a new post where anyone who wants to make a claim that their particular beliefs are absolutely correct and all others are absolutely wrong can defend that claim. A couple of guidlines, if I may.
1. The claimant is responsible for providing the proof. No claim will be considered proven by default. The Idea that any being must exist unless it can be proven to not exist is a fallacy.
2. Speculation, suppossition, and hearsay are not substantive evidence. Evidence built on those are also not substantive evidence.
3. For evidence to be substantive it must
a. Point to the premise and only to the premise. Evidence that can point to multiple explanations is not substantive evidence of your premise.
b. Be verifiable, reproduceable, and falsifiable.
c. Built upon facts that can also be verifiable, reproduceable, and falsifiable.
4. Any belief, faith, religion, philosophy, etc. can be represented so long as the claimant wishes to make the claim of absolute truth.
5. Straw man, false dichotomies, false equivocation, unproven analogies, unproven metaphors, appeal to authorities, appeal to emotion, and other fallacies of logic are not permitted to be the basis or the substance of a claim, or the evidence for a claim.
Ok that's the idea. If anyone has any other suggestions for guidelines please let me know. For those of you of any belief who want to claim once and for all that you have absolute truth and the rest of us are wrong for what we believe, here's your chance to put up, or shut up.
Once more into the breach, Dear Friends.



Answer:

Torqemada would have been proud of you, Havoc, as would have been Joe Heller. Your rules resemble a virtual moat and if you adhere to one, you will also break another. Why don't you just declare this to be another Mission Impossible?
If there is one belief that I have, it would be that spritual matters are personal matters and you will never find any univeriality. I can offer a plethora of examples, but it is unlikely that they would fall within your restrictions.
Lars; breaks the rules, now and then.
...there are known knowns; there are things we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.
Donald H. Rumsfeld, describing US defense policy.

Answer:

Which of the guidlines, in particular, do you feel are unreasonable for supporting a claim of "absolute truth"? Which in particular would result in the condition that "if you adhere to one, you will also break another"?
I believe it is "mission impossible" in the case of religious concepts. That is why I would never make a ridiculous claim of absolute truth for my beliefs.
It would not be "mission impossible" to use these guidlines to establish reasonable proof for such things as
-Guilt or innocence of a suspect of a crime
-Ownership of property
-physical properties of an object
-historical events
These guidlines are reasonable to prove things which can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt or by preponderance of the evidence. If your evidence relies on supposition, speculation, or hearsay then cannot reasonably claim absolute truth. If your evidence is no better than the next then you cannot reasonably claim your beliefs are more valid than the next. Remember I'm not challenging anyone who claims to believe something, just those claiming that they are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.
A claim of absolute truth is, by definition, a rather extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof. In this case I'm only asking for ordinary proof, such as would be required by a court of law or an academic or scientific enquiry.
Surely anyone having the confidence and arrogance enough to tell me and others that my beliefs are absolutely wrong, would have enough substantive evidence to back it up? One would think. This is an opportunity for those people to demonstrate to us that their claim is a valid one.



Answer:

Havoc, my friend - this would be a tough thread for anyone wanting to carry on a decent conversation; though it's probably a long overdue challenge for a couple of soapbox dwellers that are here.
You know my feelings on "truth". What I believe to be the truth for me is the absolute truth for me - no gray area. What you believe for you, the same holds true. A few of us respect that; others do not unfortunately. Regardless of beliefs, unless we are talking about an atheist who relies on the ABSENCE of absolute tangible evidence, it's going to be hard for anyone to prove something they believe through faith. I know I couldn't prove it, so I don't try. Rather, I enjoy simply discussing things on neutral ground, affording you the respect you deserve for your beliefs and appreciating the respect you give me for mine. Truthfully, I find it far easier going head-to-head with another Christian in debating misinterpretation of scripture - that's more concrete because the belief sets are at least grounded in similiar terrain.
Still, it will be interesting to see what kind of responses show up in the next day or so.
=======
Pen: T/N's official square-dance calling, right-winging, liberal-bashing, pro-republican, anti-democrat, Bush-supporting, anti-antichrist.
The world is going to end at 10:00! Do you have on clean underwear?

Answer:

I have no problem with you creating a Sisyphusian quest for those that claim to have found the absolute truth. I know that I would never make that claim, since I consider it to be un-obtainable.
One of the best prayers that I have ever heard went like this: Please, God, help me find the Truth and avoid those that claim to have found it.
I have a good friend, who is a Native American and she adheres to a very old belief system, as you do. That does not mean that it is of any lesser value, than any other one. I still don't personally believe in any Supreme Beings, but I will never deny anybody else the right to do so.
Some 30 years ago, I spent quite some time in Central America and down there, while heavily influenced by Catholic dogma, there were a multitude of everyday practices and rituals that depended on the lunar cycle that obviously had been passed along the generations. If it affects the oceans, why not humans?
But I am sure it will be entertaining to see who will try to make a case, according to your Rules of Evidence. Will you have a penal system for infringements of those Rules?
Lars; only knows one Absolut and it comes in a bottle.
...there are known knowns; there are things we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.
Donald H. Rumsfeld, describing US defense policy.

Answer:

[QUOTE]Originally Since there is an increasing number of tangents on different threads involving rather incredible claims of absolute truth, I thought I'd make a new post where anyone who wants to make a claim that their particular beliefs are absolutely correct and all others are absolutely wrong can defend that claim. Wait a Minute! what makes You angry about me believing the Bible. Lars poo poos Christianity, and Christian fundamentalist which I happen to be, So I respond with "I believe the Bible to be the truth" (which I do) And now you charge that I have somehow attacked your beliefs and said they were absolutely wrong! I don't even know what you'r beliefs are. All I have read from you is gripping and murmerings about Christians believing that they are right. It seems that our "ABSOLUTE" faith in Jesus Christ offends You. Here is My submission to your little puzzle,(gee I hope I pass) "To have faith" is the opposite of "any need for proof of absolute truth" as an (old fashioned, Holiness, Trinity, Pentecostal) I have ABSOLUTE FAITH that Jesus died for our sins; and only God almighty himself knows all because he is the creator of all. I personally have no need of "absolute proof" of anything since the whole premise of Christianity is all things possible through FAITH. So if you think that by me having strong faith that I am proclaiming to be all knowing , of all absolutes then you have misjudged. My faith in the Lord sustains me. Maybe the reason you treat Christians so poorly is that you are under conviction of the true living God. I pray you don't spin in circles searching for absolute truth untill you awaken one day in an absolute hell. The Devil knows the truth but he blinds the unbeliever to it. Untill one blindly steps out on faith and accepts Jesus they will remain blinded to the truth. Sorry if I offend you but thats what I believe,

Answer:

I believe what Havoc was trying to prove here by throwing down the gauntlet is that no religion, not even wicca (he's wiccan or at least just pagan) can prove that they are right and anyone else is wrong.
I agree with this assumption I made. No matter how 'true' our faiths are to us, there is no concrete evidence to back up or break down our defence of that 'truth', therefore it's silly to say one has the absolute truth when it's impossible to prove.
My 'absolute' truth is we are all worshipping the same deity, but with different names and styles of worship. I have no proof to back that up and no one else has proof to strike it down, therefore it is not *the* absolute truth.
The 'truth' is what we make of it. An easier way to explain this is that faith is an opinion. (stay with me here) It is my opinion that my faith is true, it is your opinion that Christianity is the one 'true' faith, etc. Belief and opinion are very similar in this case.
I hope I was correct in my assumption, otherwise I just wasted 7+ minutes of my time trying to explain it. I hate doing that.

Answer:

Maybe the reason you treat Christians so poorly is that you are under conviction of the true living God.
I disagree with that statement. Havoc treats me quite well and I am a true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool Christian. The reason he treats me well and visa versa is that while we are both very set in our beliefs, we respect the right of the other person to have a completely different set of beliefs. That's not a hard thing to do. That's called tolerance. It's an admirable trait, regardless of a person's beliefs - Christ was loaded with it.
Havoc reacts negatively, and rightfully so, when a few of the self-righteous Christians among us, come hammering on him and trying to drive Christianity down his throat. Heck, one poster has even had the gall to claim that Havoc is possessed of a demon! Would that not offend you? It sure would me.
You simply have to understand - and you seem to be an understanding individual - that the truth for you and I is absolute; it is based on faith and nothing that anyone says will shake that from us. The truth for Havoc is different. This is OK; it is part of the freedom that we as God's children, enjoy. We may believe Havoc to be wrong in his beliefs, just as he believes us to be wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to go about condeming everyone that doesn't agree with our beliefs. Some people on this board understand that - a few others do not and that is where the contention arises.
Everyone on this earth has the freedom to believe what they want to believe; God does not force faith upon anyone, does not command everyone to believe in Him. He gives us the freedom of choice. When we go around condeming someone for not believing what we believe, we are in essence trying to take away that freedom of choice. That is not God's way; that is satan's way and not amount of preaching will change that.
=======
Pen: T/N's official square-dance calling, right-winging, liberal-bashing, pro-republican, anti-democrat, Bush-supporting, anti-antichrist.
The world is going to end at 10:00! Do you have on clean underwear?