The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> >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.

 

Now you are speaking nonsens. You are just making up your own definitions.

 

>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.

 

Nobody will call the best team or the champions supreme.

 

> >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.

 

Anyway, if you don't want to accept the definition of the word supreme, what

can be done?

 

> 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.

 

But who cares about the atheistic position?

 

> >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.

 

It is exactly the same argument. Because there is a father, there must be a

supreme father.

 

> >> 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.

 

Good luck.

 

ys, jdd