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.

 

I don't think so. If a football team wins the World Championship then they

are the supreme football team, but that just means they had most point at

the end of the tournament. It doesn't mean they are unconquerable - and they

might even have lost a few macthes in the tournament. The same could be the

case with the living beings: Some might have most power-points when the

final score is settled but that doesn't mean they have won all their matches

or that they are unconquerable.

 

>> 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:

 

This definition doesn't say that the supreme can't be subjected to others

control. As I see it it fits the definition I presented just perfectly: Some

might have most power-points when the final score is settled, so that they

become the greatest, but that doesn't mean they have won all their matches

or that they are unconquerable.

 

>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.

 

Even if that's the definition and the mundane dictinary agrees, which I

don't think they do, it doesn't affect the atheistic position, because then

they just don't accept that there's a supreme. They would just say that it's

possible that everyone is both controlled and controller.

 

>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.

 

But that's another argument. The mother-father argument goes into the

evolution debate - if the first(s) mother(s) and father(s) are higher or

lower beings. And even though the evolution theory is very bad one has to be

very well versed in it to counter it in a way that convinces the general

public.

 

>> 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.

 

True, but I can try to impress the listeners.

 

Ys, AKD