More than once, I have put a bag of popcorn in the microwave, and forgotten about it. I come back hours later, to find room temperature popcorn. What if god is like that? Instead of watching over us, or ignoring us completely, god forgot about the reality they created. What happens when they come back? Will they continue with whatever plan they originally had? Will they dispose of us if they find us ruined somehow, like burnt popcorn? What if they create a new reality, but don’t forget this time? Has our reality gone horribly astray as a result of being forgotten by a benevolent god? Is god malevolent, meaning things will get much worse when they come back?
1 Like
I think that’s similar to what is suggested in the bible but im not sure. I think the return of jesus-the rapture- will be similar to what you mean by a god leavin us to our own devices and then coming back to us. What if god stopped watching us since jesus ascended? Like he thought he could leave the leftover popcorn for later but came back to moldy food instead.
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ~ Jesus Christ
How could a benevolent god forget about his creation?
How is it that so often in theistic discussions, benevolence goes hand in hand with weakness?
Benevolent doesnt imply anything about memory or strength.
Wtf are you talking about?
While I understand this discussion is meant to be secular, multiple stories in Abrahamic theology seem to disprove the idea of God’s omniscience, at least not as having a constant, eternal state as our modern language would suggest, perhaps similar to taking a nap or…rest on the 7th day?
For example, in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. God purportedly asked creation “who told you that you were naked?”, for example. Thus indicating an absence and ignorance of what events transpired in said absence. And again in the story of Cain and Able. It was Able’s blood that “cried out” that made God seek Cain and asked him where his brother was. Also an indication of absence and ignorance of events that transpired.
Though not necessarily. Rhetoric is certainly a possibility.
One thing about this post which I reject is that it is speculative at the core; “What if this thing is true?” This is not an argument, and it does nothing to invite credence over to the possibility that God is indifferent to reality, unless you can set forth arguments over to the possibility of the indifference of God, which are in the form of premises, in this fashion:
P1. If God exists, he is good. P2. If God is good, then the world wouldn’t reflect indifference. P3. The world does reflect indifference (Cite the problem of evil, or divine hiddenness, or something else for this premise). Therefore, C1. God is not good (Justified by P2 + P3 via modus tollens). Therefore, C2. God does not exist (Justified by P1 + C1 via modus tollens).
This is a general argument, unlike your first post, which was a question more than anything else.
Given that this is your first post on here, and that this is an internet philosophy website, you shouldn’t be expected to give academic-tier arguments for and against specific propositions, but philosophy, at its core, is arguments, and so you should probably read up on how to make philosophical arguments before making more posts, such as this article on the SEP (Very good but challenging Philosophy resource):
Or the IEP, which is generally considered to be easier to read than the SEP:
Digression. This premise always strikes me as odd. What do you think? Why would we hold that God is good? Which God and why? The idea of God is so diffuse, it’s close to incoherent. And certainly if our world is anything to go by, and it reflects God’s plan, then I would say that deity was probably a monster.
In the Christian church I grew up in, no one took the Bible literally. These books were understood as allegories and myths. Many theists would locate God’s nature not through folk tales for the common people but through Aquinas and natural theology.
You’re conflating the concept of God with that of Deities, where the former refers to a maximally great being who acts as a grounding for reality and its properties, while the latter is, basically, any generic postulated being who is considered to be worthy of worship. So when the OP mentions God and not Deities, then he would be referring to, specifically, a being akin to the one of Christian theology, who is maximal in all attributes, including moral attributes, which would imply that God, if he exists as postulated, needs to be perfectly good, otherwise we would not be talking about the same concept anymore. So, my first premise is relevant to the OP, and I think you ought to make arguments yourself, as your post is, itself, multiple assertions strung together without justification. Lets start here: if you make the claim that if we were to observe our world, and that it implies that God, who would be its creator if he existed, is monstrous, then what is your logical justification for why this is?
It may be quite possible you “grew up” in a godless building with people who believe in nothing but conformity and virtue signaling, my friend.
If God is Truth, it is certainly unknowable and beyond human comprehension. A lite or lower ABV beer, though worthy of mockery by those who are familiar with more, remains a genuine and true beer. We are given what we can handle and little more. And even that gets men carried away.
So basically whatever they feel like believing. Yeah. That seems to be par for the course. Perhaps this is the fate of mankind. Or. Perhaps not? 
Not entirely sure what you mean here. If it is a version of the Christian God and you take the Bible literally, then this God comes across more like a mafia boss and a bit of a cunt.
Same reasons most people say this: a world built almost entirely around predation, natural disasters, suffering, cancer, and so on. The theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart has said that, for him, the problem of suffering is very difficult to reconcile. But as I said, that is a digression, and we do not need to interrupt this thread with familiar arguments.
Of course. True for all of us.
Can you explain how that tracks to Aquinas?
My oh my, what do we have here. Perhaps there is a God after all. I mean, @Tom_Storm apparently knows the fundamental truth in regards to the lives and destinies of all 8 billion (and more) men and women who live and have ever lived. And without even having to speak to 99% of them. Heh. Fancy that. 
Most assuredly. But I would instead prefer to elucidate you as far as my point that appears to have been ignored. It does not matter who this person was or what he said, assuming this person ever existed. I mean, we doubt one religious figure so why pick and choose who we do and do not? What matters is precisely what my statement curated. I shall state it again. A bit more directly. People believe what they feel like believing (outside of extreme settings). He may have been a great man with great insight that led many previously astray to greener pastures. And if so I applaud him. But there were many before him who did precisely the same whose memory no longer resides in the current public spotlight or zeitgeist, and most assuredly there will be many who do so after. Do you believe this figure is immune to such a predictable and consistent cycle?
I don’t think we can assume this, especially given that the OP asks “is God malevolent?”. Presumably this question ought not be taken to be self-defeating.
I think in context, by “God” the OP is referring to a “minimal” notion of God as the creator of the universe, without positing additional qualities like omnipotence, omniscience (given that he also considers that this God “forgot about the reality they created”), or benevolence.
And I think it’s a fair definition. If it could be proved that the universe was created by a supernatural entity, with the power at least to create a universe (and presumably also to reshape and destroy it), then it would seem a little silly to refuse to call it “God” unless it cares about us.
The hard part about God belief is believing that God is on one’s side.
1 Like
I can’t seem to figure out how the discussion strayed into nature-of-God territory, but religions tend to be a dizzying blend of massive complexity and childish simplicity.
It’s a simple question, unambiguously titled Popcorn God, a kitchen-analogy painted in sufficient detail to enable the respondens to answer but only IF there’s an answer. I’ve gone through the posts and none are satisfactory.
I have my own little theory though. Deus ubique est (God everywhere is), but Jesus did cry out, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and with his last breath resigned, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”, but right before that, “Consummatum est.”
There’s also a very fatherly rap on the knuckles, “nice boys don’t ask that question.”
If you read the section of this post which lay above the quoted one, you would be able to distinguish what “God” is, and what “Deities” are. Unless the OP thinks that a Deity created the world, which would be any generic being who is worthy of worship, and so the characteristics of this deity are unspecified, and so it would not be uncharacteristic of this deity to possibly be indifferent to us, then God is, if the OP specifies God rather than deities, maximally great by definition, and so it is necessary for this God to be morally good, otherwise it would not be God, but just some kind of Deity, which the OP did not specify, or imply that it is. So, mentioning the moral character of this God, and seeing whether it is coherent or not, is fully relevant to this conversation.
Not everyone uses the word “God” to mean what you mean, and it is clear that the OP doesn’t.
You suggested earlier that the name “God” refers to the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is more than just “maximally good” (which is debatable, given the Old Testament) but also the father of Jesus Christ. Does it then follow that something is God only if Jesus existed and was the son of this God?
Then suppose that the universe was created by an all powerful, all knowing, all good Supreme Being, but the New Testament is a fiction and either Jesus didn’t exist or was just an ordinary man. Does this Supreme Being count as being God?
Who decides which parts of the Christian God are necessary for something to be God and which parts are superfluous?
Never did I say this. I said that God, as he is defined, is akin to the God of Christianity, not one and the same thing. God, as he is commonly defined, is simply a maximally great being, while the Christian God, while also posited to be maximally great, also has many additional things to consider, such as divine commands, moral laws, being equal to Christ, among other things. So, I never made a direct equivocation between God by definition and the God of the bible, even if both are very similar, and that is the first part where you are mistaken.
So, even if we were able to find undeniable proof that the existence of the Christian God is false (Say, if one of the Christian God’s teachings and Dogmas are provably incoherent, or that the trinity is incoherent), it doesn’t follow that God itself is false, and you would need further arguments to prove that God by definition is false, which the OP didn’t give, and which the OP’s characterization of God as possibility being indifferent would be contradictory to the definition of God by definition, and so would be the possible characterization of any generic creator deity than God itself, and which you, yourself, have not given any logical arguments yourself to demonstrate that God by definition is false.
So, I would suggest that you make a logical argument, with premises and a conclusion, as to why God by definition is false.
Not everyone subscribes to this definition, as evidenced by the fact that the OP asks “is God malevolent?”
Why would I do this, given that I’m not interested in proving that God “is false” (which by this I assume you mean “doesn’t exist”)? I’m only interested in rejecting your assertion that anything which is God must, by definition, be good. If something is all-powerful, all-knowing, and the monotheistic creator of the universe, then the name “God” seems a fitting label, even if it’s an amoral (or immoral) intelligence.
If you don’t want to call this thing “God” then you don’t have to, but it’s peculiar to argue that everyone else is wrong if they do.
My mistake.