Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 >> 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. 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 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. >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. 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. 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. Therefore I just allways satick to presenting our scientific process that prooves God. And sometimes I add these two arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.