The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> Well, I think there's a way that gives so much doubt to the argument that

> it looses most of it's power. Try and see if you can counteract this

> answer:

>

> We can imagine that the world consists of beings that all both have power

> over other beings and are subjected to the powers of other beings.

>

> If you imagine that you have a circle, so that A-being controls B-being

> that controls C-being that controls A-being. Then there's no supreme or

> most powerfull being.

>

> And even if one being can be said to be more powerfull than the others,

> then it still doesn't mean that this being is at all not subjected to the

> control of at least one other being.

 

If someone is more powerful than all others it means by definition that he

cannot be subjected to the control of any other. If he could he would not be

more powerful than all others. In other words, the supreme cannot be

subjected to anyone's control, or He would not be the supreme. To postulate

an infinite regression of supreme beings is simply foolishness, because none

of them would be supreme. A supreme being is defined by being the topmost

just like it is stated in the Upanishads - na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca

drsyate - no one is equal to or above the supreme.

 

Anyway, since atheists don't accept logic and reason it is hopeless to argue

with them on that basis. Of course, there is nothing else that we can do for

the sake of potential neutral listeners, but if we think we can convince

them or get any sort of honest exchange from them, then we will simply be

frustrated.

 

ys, jdd