Afterlife and Pre-life
- Thread starter heresJohnny
- Start date
I know quite a few indians [and hindus] and they do not consider their Gods to be benevolent. Unfulfilled contracts*, defiled idols/books, not keeping in with the religious traditions/holidays all are said to incur the wrath of the Gods. That is the actual attitude that I have come across.
Ps. Surprisingly, atheists are quite accepted in the hindu literature [and hindus themselves are surprisingly tolerant of atheists compared to christians or muslims].
* They have these deals with Gods [called 'mannat'] which is basically a practice of securing the 'blessing' of the Gods in exchange of something [like offerings, visits, rituals, etc].
So you - and those Indians / Hindus - think that a benevolent God is one who doesn't care where one places items intended for Him, and who doesn't mind whether one celebrates the holy days or not?
I can't quite relate to what appears to be your idea of benevolence (and of those Indians / Hindus) -
"God is going to be angry with you if you don't do as you promised Him, and this means that God is not benevolent."
I can't quite relate to what appears to be your idea of benevolence (and of those Indians / Hindus) -
"God is going to be angry with you if you don't do as you promised Him, and this means that God is not benevolent."
Any other God, even if benevolent, would be too petty to worship because such God concepts are simply human personas blown up like silly comic book superheroes, not the ultimate in perfection that God is supposed to be.
Benevolence is generally defined as a tendancy to do good. A god who, despite being a God, does not do good for some trivialities as those cannot be called a God, must less benevolent.
@wynn --
Yup, I didn't. However after going and reading the link I see that I didn't have to as my answer is still the same. Their's isn't the "problem of evil" it's the "problem of injustice" which they answer with karma. Their supreme deity isn't defined as being omnibenevolent, it's defined as being omnipotent and just which is an entirely different trait. And that's from your own link.
So, my answer remains the same, that deity is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent and thus doesn't meet the qualifiers for the problem of evil.
Correct, as a benevolent god would be more concerned with the well being of it's worshipers than with where they place an idol. And the problem of evil doesn't address deities who are simply benevolent, but those who are omnibenevolent. In other words, deities who's every action and characteristic is benevolent.
Such deities don't exist within the hindu mythology and thus the problem of evil doesn't address them.
Yup, I didn't. However after going and reading the link I see that I didn't have to as my answer is still the same. Their's isn't the "problem of evil" it's the "problem of injustice" which they answer with karma. Their supreme deity isn't defined as being omnibenevolent, it's defined as being omnipotent and just which is an entirely different trait. And that's from your own link.
So, my answer remains the same, that deity is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent and thus doesn't meet the qualifiers for the problem of evil.
Correct, as a benevolent god would be more concerned with the well being of it's worshipers than with where they place an idol. And the problem of evil doesn't address deities who are simply benevolent, but those who are omnibenevolent. In other words, deities who's every action and characteristic is benevolent.
Such deities don't exist within the hindu mythology and thus the problem of evil doesn't address them.
Last edited:
I think that the laws of physics explain why everything happens quite well.
Karma is simply the cycle of cause and effect but the laws of quantum mechanics do away with the primitive theory of cause of effect and actually explain how some things can happen also without a cause = quantum indeterminacy.
Everything can be explained by physics eventually as physics triumps over everything.
Last edited:
How does explaining something as occurring without a cause render it superior?
How can we use quantum mechanics or physics to explain and direct our ethical concerns in interactions with other people, other living beings and other things?
For example, you find out that a friend has lied to you, and now you don't know whether to confront him or not, and if yes, how, and you don't know how to put your mind to ease over the betrayal.
How do you use physics to address your concerns in this situation?
Your idea of (omni)benevolence seems to be something like this:
"To be (omni)benevolent is to indiscriminately think, feel, speak and act the way other people want one to think, feel, speak and act."
This, of course, is an internally inconsistent notion, given that different people have different expectations of how someone would have to think, feel, speak and act in order to be considered (omni)benevolent.
Can you suggest an idea of benevolence that could be universally acceptable (ie. one that all people would recognize as "benevolent")?
@wynn --
Theoretically it would be possible given a complete enough knowledge of physics, which we don't currently possess, and a detailed enough model, which we also don't currently possess. Perhaps we wouldn't use quantum physics since that's an incomplete description of physical laws, but it should be possible.
Of course, that means that Pluto2's argument is more than a little specious.
Theoretically it would be possible given a complete enough knowledge of physics, which we don't currently possess, and a detailed enough model, which we also don't currently possess. Perhaps we wouldn't use quantum physics since that's an incomplete description of physical laws, but it should be possible.
Of course, that means that Pluto2's argument is more than a little specious.
Injustice is a form of evil.
Only a just entity can also be benevolent; only a (omni)benevolent entity can be just.
You seem to think that justice and benevolence can be mutually exclusive.
As I said to the other poster:
Your idea of (omni)benevolence seems to be something like this:
"To be (omni)benevolent is to indiscriminately think, feel, speak and act the way other people want one to think, feel, speak and act."
This, of course, is an internally inconsistent notion, given that different people have different expectations of how someone would have to think, feel, speak and act in order to be considered (omni)benevolent.
Can you suggest an idea of benevolence that could be universally acceptable (ie. one that all people would recognize as "benevolent")?
That, however promising it might seem, is of no use to us now, since on a daily basis, we are faced with ethical issues that press us and that we have to address somehow.
@wynn --
That doesn't necessarily make justice benevolence.
They most certainly can be. If a man tries to kill me and I kill him instead, that is just but it is most certainly not benevolent.
That's not my definition, that's the dictionary definition. Omni(all) benevolence.
Yup, which is why smart religions don't define their deities with omni-traits, they have a very high tendency to be internally inconsistent.
However this is not a problem for me, it's a problem for religions that are stupid enough to do so.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems to be a widely accepted standard. Or, haven't you heard that one?
That doesn't necessarily make justice benevolence.
They most certainly can be. If a man tries to kill me and I kill him instead, that is just but it is most certainly not benevolent.
That's not my definition, that's the dictionary definition. Omni(all) benevolence.
Yup, which is why smart religions don't define their deities with omni-traits, they have a very high tendency to be internally inconsistent.
However this is not a problem for me, it's a problem for religions that are stupid enough to do so.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems to be a widely accepted standard. Or, haven't you heard that one?
I suppose this logically follows - but that does not mean that it applies to God.
It's easy to get swept away by logic - people can easily fall prey to the trap that if something is logical, then it must also be true in a real sense.
All dogs have gills.
I have an animal that is a dog.
Therefore, my dog has gills.
The basic premises in the quoted reasoning seem to be
People are able to provoke God's wrath.
God is a being whose emotional states depend exclusively on what people do or don't do.
I think those premises are silly, to say the least.
If, for example, a person has promised to keep sacred items in an appropriate place, but then doesn't keep sacred items in an appropriate place, that has corrective consequences for them (such as in the form of an unease conscience). Not because God would be an angsty, angry, revengeful teenager, but because not keeping the promises one has made is unethical.
It's also an extremely selfish standard.
Some people want things done to them that others find repugnant.
There was a pop song once that explicated on this idea:
I don’t have the heart to hurt you
It’s the last I want to do
But I don’t have the heart to love you
Not the way you want me to
I don't have the heart to love you the way you want me to.
The Golden Rule may be appropriate in highly homogenous societies where all members have very similar systems of beliefs and values.
But it breaks down and becomes counterproductive outside of such societies - such as in modern multicultural societies where people are living together whose systems of beliefs and values differ greatly.
Not at all; omni-notions are internally inconsistent only when we attempt to make sense of them in relation to humans.
As fas as definitions go, God is the source of all riches, and thus He can give and take everything, hence He is omnibenevolent.
Humans can give and take very little, in comparison to God.
Again, if God is all that the hype suggests he is, why should he care for a item placed somewhere? Is that really important to THE ONE? Does a person's intentions and actions not provide a better indicator of what God should do than where he places some mystic objects?
Actually, there is quite a compelling case for how we can (and have, and do) draw our morals from science. Sam Harris has championed this argument for quite a while now, and rather than simply quote mine him, I'll give you a link to one of his shorter lectures on the subject.
It's under 25 minutes, so it won't drain your day away, and Sam happens to be one of the best orators in the business, so he's entertaining as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
It's under 25 minutes, so it won't drain your day away, and Sam happens to be one of the best orators in the business, so he's entertaining as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww