The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

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

> >he cannot be subjected to the control of any other.

>

> Why is that? Humans as a species are generally considered the most

> powerfull being on Earth, but even a human can die because some little

> germ. But that doesn't mean the germ is more powerfull in all

> circumstances.

 

If someone is the most powerful, it means there is no one more powerful. If

there were someone more powerful he wouldn't be the most powerful. It's

simple logic.

 

> >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.

>

> As I can see that depends how you define supreme. Humans are the supreme

> species in the sanse that we can control and manipulate more than any

> other being on Earth, but still humans are subjected to the control of

> other beings.

 

Whatever. Here is the definition from American Heritage. According to that

definition the supreme means the supreme. IOW no one is above or equal to it

or him... just like it says in the Upanishads.

 

supreme (s‹-pr¶m“) adj. supremer, supremest. Abbr. supr. 1. Greatest in

power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance,

degree, significance, character, or achievement. 3. Ultimate; final:

 

> >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.

>

> Well, that's the Vedic definition. But an atheist would just say that we

> don't have to accept that because supreme simply means the most powerfull,

> but to be the most powerfull doesn't necessarily mean that you can control

> everything. It just means you can control most compared to other beings.

 

It doesn't matter what an atheist would say. They are after all stupid, and

therefore it doesn't matter what they say. In the real world, supreme means

that no one is equal to or above, just like it says in the Vedas. The

mundane dictionary even agrees with that definition.

 

> And the argument I gave doesn't postulate an infinite regress but a

> circle.

>

> A-being controls B-being. B-being control C-being. C-being control

> A-being. Just like in this game, which some of you might know, were the

> scissor cuts the paper, the paper wraps in the stone, and the stone

> smashes the scissor. Here all of them are equally controller and

> controlled.

>

> So no matter how you choose to define "supreme" I think this circle

> argument defeats the theistic argument. It concludes that no being has to

> be above all other beings.

 

No it doesn't. It concludes that if you accept logic and reason you have to

accept that there is a supreme being.Prabhupada used this argument many

times. He said there is a father, he has a father, who has a father and so

on. In the end you come to the supreme father. It's pure logic.

 

> It's not that I like defeating theistic arguments. I just think we have to

> be honest and admit if an argument is not good. Personally I think the

> only really good theistic arguments I know is the teleological argument

> (design argument) and the deontological argument (moral argument.) All

> others are to vague and uncertain.

 

Well, that's just your opinion.

 

> Therefore I just allways satick to presenting our scientific process that

> prooves God. And sometimes I add these two arguments.

 

You can't prove God to atheists no matter what you do or say.

 

ys, jdd