The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

Pamho, agtSP!

 

Regarding the definition of "supreme".

 

My point here is simple. As far as I understood you you claimed that the

atheists couldn't claim that the supreme can be controlled by someone,

because the supreme per definition can't be subjected to any control. I just

pointed out, that the word also have other definitions, like the highest in

rank etc.

 

>> - 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.

 

>We can claim that we use the word in the sense of ultimate. To say that the

>word can have other meanings is simply obfuscation. It is irrelevant.

 

So basically, what you're arguing is that this particular theistic argument

we are discussing proves (or gives very good reasons) to believe that a

supreme being - in the unlimited God sense of the term - exist. I'm skeptic

about that.

 

>> 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.

 

>There is no logical basis for atheism, so what you are saying is an

>oxymoron.

 

Oxymoron is not part of my dictionary. What does it mean?

 

Even though there's no logical basis for atheism, then an atheist can, in my

view, say things that are correct. If an atheist says...

 

1. Sokrates is a man

2. All men are mortal

3. Therefore, Sokrates is mortal

 

....then they are actually saying something completely logical.

 

>> 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.

 

>Maybe you think that because you haven't sufficiently realized how it is a

>good argument.

 

That's true. I'm just stating how I see things now. If someone can give me

good reasons to change my mind, then I would be happy. I would like to see

more good arguments for God. This particular argument is, in my view, not

very good - at least when it stands alone. It shows that God could be an

answer, but I don't think it shows it's better than other answer - at least

not on it's own.

 

>I think

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

> challenged, because if someone accepted them it was good.

 

>Vaishnavera kriya mudra vijneha na buddhyaya - apart from that I think it

>is our duty as followers of Srila Prabhupada to study his teachings deeply

>and understand how they are true. He used the argument of supremacy

>consistently throughout his teachings, so it must be a good argument,

>because he said that he had come with two purposes - to give Krishna and to

>defeat atheism.

 

How many times did he use it? Can we find some references? And it's not the

mother-father-argument. It's different. Just why Prabhupada used these

argument I can't tell for sure, but I think he often was using what is

called heuristic reasoning. Hrdayananda Maharaja makes this point in some

lectures - that Prabhupada would use heuristic reasoning many times.

Heuristic reasoning is reasoning not regarded as final and strict but as

provisional and plausible only. It doesn't strictly follow all the rules of

logic and reasoning. It's used to show the reasonableness of something,

sometimes just in a given context.

 

>> 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.

 

>It is completely irrelevant. It is obvious that when we use the word

>supreme about God it is as in final and ultimate. To then propose that the

>word can be used in a more relative sense is simply obfuscation, which is

>what the atheists always do.

 

I'm just refering to the fact that you said the atheists could claim that

the supreme was not under some control, because "supreme" per definition

means "can not be controlled." But that's not true according to the normal

use of the word and the dictionary.

 

>> 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.

 

>That's your opinion and you are entitled to that, but since Prabhupad used

>the argument consistently it must be a good argument. Whether we have

>understood how it is a good argument is another thing.

 

Maybe it's good to convince people, even though it's not very strictly

logical.

 

>> 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.

 

>You don't have to accept sastra to accept the word supreme in the sense of

>ultimate.

 

But just to accept that the word "supreme" can have that meaning is not a

proof that there must exist such a being.

 

>Besides any discussion of philosophy necessitates a predisposed

>acceptance of axioms. If we agree to discuss only on the basis of atheistic

>axioms, we will never get anywhere.

 

But this theistic argument is based on material sense perception, as far as

I can see. It says that in this world we can see that some beings are

controlling other beings, and in this way we have a rank of beings where

those in higher positions controls the ones in the lower positions, and

therefore the one on top must be supreme and not subjected to anyones

control. I just don't see that as the only solution, but I will get back to

that.

 

 

>>Why suppose that someone is not controlled by anyone?

 

>Because otherwise you suggest that everything is relative.

 

Everything? Why do I suggest that EVERYTHING is relative? I just state that

all being is controlled and controllers at the same time. I can kill a germ,

and a germ can kill my - depending on the circumstances. I would like to see

just how my argument necessitates that everything is relative? I don't think

it does.

 

>> 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

 

>You can't have option three without suggesting that everything is relative.

 

Why not?

 

>I think your problem is that you haven't understood that the circle

>scenario is the same as saying that everything is relative.

 

Okay! I hope you're right Prabhu! Please explain why it's so?

 

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

>> >there must be absolute.

 

This actually sounds interesting! Of course, logic tells us that there must

be an absolute truth, because we can't deny an absolute truth without at the

same time conforming it - because the claim "there's no absolute truth" can

only be a meaningsful claim if it absolutely true.

 

It could be interesting if we could prove/give good reasons to think that a

personal God exist based on the duality of the world. I heard this argument

long time ago, and I just remember it now...no let me make a new letter

about that.

 

Ys, AKD