are you talking about being on the receiving end of karma, the delegating end of karma, or something else?
Afterlife and Pre-life
- Thread starter heresJohnny
- Start date
are you talking about being on the receiving end of karma, the delegating end of karma, or something else?
No it doesn't. Karma doesn't exist. If Karma really existed then the rich and greedy people in the world will be forced to pay for their deeds.
But it doesn't happen. The rich and greedy live happy and successful lives while the poor, sick and disabled live short and miserable lives.
Fact is that neither God nor Karma really exist in reality.
Last edited:
I guess the next question is "does karma begin and end with a single life?"
that doesn't make sense since an entity that had the power to direct reactions to past deeds (omnipotent) as a consequence of what one deserves and desires (omnibenevolent) then you have both bases filled
Indeed. People find it hard to accept that the natural world and the way it works seems to not care at all about thinks like justice, worth, feelings, emotions, intent, destiny,etc - it just cares for causality. Things are the way they are because some people realise that the main goal in life is not to do the right thing or be moral or honest or the best but merely to bring out the best outcome of situations one is in, by whatever means necessary. So people do this for the optimal good for all involved and others do it self-servingly. Many hit upon this effect knowingly or unknowingly and give rise to varying degrees of good and evil as we see in the world.
@LG --
But karma isn't sentient and thus doesn't have the capability to be benevolent. And lets not forget that being just(you know, like karma is supposed to be) and being benevolent are very often at odds with each other.
Also, your definition of omnibenevolence is your personal one, not one accepted by anyone else and certainly not accepted by me, hence your argument fails.
@wynn --
So you're talking about something completely different from what I was talking about and yet you think that your posts still have relevance to mine? What are you on and where can I get some?
But karma isn't sentient and thus doesn't have the capability to be benevolent. And lets not forget that being just(you know, like karma is supposed to be) and being benevolent are very often at odds with each other.
Also, your definition of omnibenevolence is your personal one, not one accepted by anyone else and certainly not accepted by me, hence your argument fails.
@wynn --
So you're talking about something completely different from what I was talking about and yet you think that your posts still have relevance to mine? What are you on and where can I get some?
hence
that doesn't make sense since an entity that had the power to direct reactions to past deeds (omnipotent) as a consequence of what one deserves and desires (omnibenevolent) then you have both bases filled
That is another statement that doesn't make sense.
Far from being at odds with each other, the two qualities of benevolence and justness support each other
On the contrary, your ideas seem to personal and don't appear to make sense to anyone.
@LG --
That trait does not necessarily imply omnipotence, though an omnipotent being could theoretically act in that manner. The definition of omnipotence is to be all powerful, and Karma is not traditionally described as an all powerful force. Fail.
That would fit the definition of justice but not that of benevolence and hence would not qualify as omnibenevolence, or the attribute of being all benevolent.
Sucks when the dictionary disagrees with you, doesn't it?
Really? The act of punishing a criminal is just, but it is not benevolent. Seems pretty obvious to me that the two are sometimes at odds.
My ideas on this subject are supported by the dictionary and by the majority of philosophers and theologians worldwide. What are yours supported by? Oh that's right, the hot air coming out of your mouth.
That trait does not necessarily imply omnipotence, though an omnipotent being could theoretically act in that manner. The definition of omnipotence is to be all powerful, and Karma is not traditionally described as an all powerful force. Fail.
That would fit the definition of justice but not that of benevolence and hence would not qualify as omnibenevolence, or the attribute of being all benevolent.
Sucks when the dictionary disagrees with you, doesn't it?
Really? The act of punishing a criminal is just, but it is not benevolent. Seems pretty obvious to me that the two are sometimes at odds.
My ideas on this subject are supported by the dictionary and by the majority of philosophers and theologians worldwide. What are yours supported by? Oh that's right, the hot air coming out of your mouth.
I think you have lost track of your original argument.
Go back and precisely explain the problem of god being omnipotent and omnibenevolent and you will see how the response addresses this
Maybe you would be better off looking at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just?s=t
The only disagreement from these links I see is with your claim that the terms are at odds with each other
So in your view, no one has ever benefited from being punished?
So far there is no evidence that the dictionary supports your views, and the prospect of you drawing some majority in philosophy and theology appears even more dubious .....
Last edited:
In general, in the Hindu view, karma is directed by God; the idea isn't that karma is God.
God is said to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and in His omnipotence and omnibenevolence, He directs the workings of karma.
Only if you take for granted that the world as we usually know it and life as it is usually lived, is the alpha and omega of existence, the alpha and omega of God's potencies.
Only the Abrahamic ones.
@wynn --
Can you show me indication that this world isn't, as you put it, the "alpha and omega of existence"? Even just a glimmer? No? Didn't think so.
Which is fine because the problem of evil was only developed to address the Abrahamic god. However the argument can be logically extended to any being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. When you brought karma into the discussion, a force which is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, it was merely a red herring.
Can you show me indication that this world isn't, as you put it, the "alpha and omega of existence"? Even just a glimmer? No? Didn't think so.
Which is fine because the problem of evil was only developed to address the Abrahamic god. However the argument can be logically extended to any being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. When you brought karma into the discussion, a force which is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, it was merely a red herring.
Hinduism has many gods, not just one.
Also, if I understand correctly, the gods are as much subject to karma as human beings are. They don't direct karma.
Which god?
Followers of Vedanta consider Ishvara, a personal supreme God, as playing a role in the delivery of karma. Theistic schools of Hinduism such as Vedanta thus disagree with the Buddhist and Jain views and other Hindu views that karma is merely a law of cause and effect but rather is also dependent on the will of a personal supreme God. A summary of this theistic view of karma is expressed by the following: "God does not make one suffer for no reason nor does He make one happy for no reason. God is very fair and gives you exactly what you deserve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma#Hinduism
The conception of Ishvara in Hinduism is very much dependent on the particular school of thought. While any one of five forms of a personal God can embody the concept of Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta, schools of Vaishnavism, on other hand, consider only Vishnu and His incarnations as the ultimate omnipotent Ishvara and all other forms of God as merely expansions or aspects of Vishnu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara
What on earth makes you think I was ever discussing anything less?