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.

 

The atheists doesn't refer to God when they refer to the supreme being, they

just say that the supreme being is not all-powerfull. Of course ewe can

refer to God, but what does it help when we don't give sufficient reasons to

accept Him?

 

- We claim the supreme being is God

- They claim it's also a possibility that the supreme being can is also

subjected to control

 

According to the dictionary definition the word supreme can be used in both

these ways, so we can't claim that our definition is the only correct one.

 

If we don't want to argue on their premises then we can just always say: The

Vedic literature is self-evident, svatah-pranama, and therefore all atheists

are wrong and ignorant, end of discussion. And no matter what they say, even

though it actually valid logic, is just nonsense simply because they are

atheists.

 

I don't think that's going to be very fruitful.

 

>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.

 

That might be true for the court, but not for a supreme sportsteam. So the

word supreme can be used in both ways, and I don't think this particular

theistic argument is very good, even though it can be used. I think

Prabhupada many times used arguments, even though he knew they could be

challenged, because if someone accepted them it was good.

 

>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.

 

It depends how we use the word. There's nothing wrong - according to the

dictionary definition - in claming that someone is the supreme in some sport

for example, but if it just means that the person got most point, then it

could be he even lost one or more games in the competition. One can be the

supreme for some time and then someone else takes over. That's the way the

word is normally used and it fits the dictionary meaning. So I'm not making

semantics out of this, I'm simply following the normal use of the word.

 

If the dictionary definition is wrong and the Vedic definition right -

that's an other discussion. But it's hard for me to see how the Vedas can

define what a non-vedic word is supposed to mean.

 

>> 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.

 

>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.

 

But the whole problem with this is that I don't think we have shown the

existence of God by this particular argument, no matter how we choose to

define.

 

>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.

 

As I see it many of the presented arguments uses premises which has to be

taken as self-evident axioms before the argument gets started. To me it

seems that many of these arguments depends on that the debaters both accept

sastra.

 

For example, you say:

 

>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.

 

We can take that from sastra, but how can we prove it logically or

empirically? All beings in our material experience seems to be both

controlled and controllers. Humans can kill germs and germs can kill humans.

Why suppose that someone is not controlled by anyone?

 

You might be able to reason that even though the most powerfull being in our

experience can be controlled by some lower being, still that being is more

powerfull and less controlled in the end. This means that you can still make

a list of beings that are progressively less controlled. And then you have

three options:

 

1. This list can be infinite (which we can't accept)

2. This list can end in a being that is not at all controlled

3. Or we can have the circle scenario I was talking about

 

I don't think we can make a very strong case for 2 instead of three. But I'm

open to suggestions.

 

>IOW, what he is saying is that because there is relative

>there must be absolute.

 

Relativism is self-contradictory and foolish, no doubt.