Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 >> 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. No, this fits the definition you brought up. Here's some other definitions: supreme A adjective 1 sovereign, supreme greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal" 2 supreme greatest or maximal in degree; extreme; "supreme folly" 3 supreme final or last in your life or progress; "the supreme sacrifice"; "the supreme judgment" 4 supreme highest in excellence or achievement; "supreme among musicians"; "a supreme endeavor"; "supreme courage" The Merriam-Websters says: Etymology: Latin supremus, superlative of superus upper -- more at SUPERIOR 1 : highest in rank or authority <the supreme commander> 2 : highest in degree or quality <supreme endurance in war and in labour -- R. W. Emerson> 3 : ULTIMATE, FINAL <the supreme sacrifice> So supreme can refer to just being the highest in a specific context, for example "the supreme musician." It can also just refer to someone who has the highest rank. It doesn't have to refer to some supernatural God, it can also refer to humans and institutions. In many countries there's a supreme court, and in the military you have the supreme commander. The supreme commander is not unconquerable, necessarily. And even if supreme only could refer to some supernatural God, then the atheists would just say he can't see that the argument we're talking about proves such a being, because the world could simply exist of being that are all both controlled and controllers. >>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. Oh yes many will! You never heard of "Supreme Teams"? Just try to search google for ["supreme team" sport]. >> >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? I just accepted it >> 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? I care about it if it invalidates our position. For example, if we use this argument just presented I don't think we have a good case. >> >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. Why? How can we show that the first father is someone supreme? Why can't he be a germ, or just the same kind of being? It's logically possible, or? >> True, but I can try to impress the listeners. >Good luck. Thanks! Ys, AKD - What do you say about all this Bhakta Jan Prabhu? 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.