The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> 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.

 

But that's not the way we use the word when we refer to God. We use it in

the sense of 3 : ULTIMATE, FINAL <the supreme sacrifice>

 

It is called the supreme court, which means there is no court beyond it. If

a being is supreme, it means by definition that there is no being beyond it.

To suggest that maybe there is a higher being than the Supreme being is

simply less intelligent. If there were a being higher than the Supreme, then

the Supreme wouldn't be supreme. The higher being would be supreme.

Therefore the Supreme in the Vedas is defined as that being whom no one is

equal to or above.

 

> 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.

 

What does it matter what the atheists would say? They have already shown

they have no regard for logic or reason, and that their position makes no

sense. So what do we care for what they say? That's what I mean when I say

that it is a mistake to argue with them on the basis on their own premises,

because their premises make no sense.

 

> >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. If you want to discuss semtantics that's another thing. That's

what atheists always try to draw you into. Because they don't have logic and

reason on their side they always try to obfuscate things with hairsplitting

semantics. Obviously we talk about supreme as in supreme, final, ultimate.

To point out that the word can also have other more relative meanings is

completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

> >> 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.

 

That's just an opinion. I think we have a very good case. If it is the

argument used in Nyaya sastra and if Prabhuapda himself used it, it must be

a good argument. That the atheists can't understand or accept it just shows

they are opposed to logic and reason. They actually don't have the

brainpower to understand it. We should just point that out to them in stead

of getting sucked into their limited understandings.

 

> >>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?

 

Prabhupada says that in this world there is always someone who is higher or

more powerful than someone else, and therefore there must be some one who is

supremely powerful. IOW, what he is saying is that because there is relative

there must be absolute. It doesn't make sense to say that everything is

relative, because then you run into the problem of infinite regressions.

Even the Vedic atheists and mayavadis were not so stupid that they said

everything is relative. In a world where everything is relative everything

is meaningless, and only stupid people claim that.

 

in the history of philosophy only the most low class unintelligent

philosophers like Sartre, Marx and Freud would claim that. Look at a person

like Sartre. He was just an alkoholic and pill abuser, that's all. He had

absolutely nothing of value to contribute. His writings are pure and

unadulterated garbage. That he has gained recognition in the modern world is

not a credit to him, but simply a symptom of the deranged state of Kaliyuga.

 

ys, jdd