Would you kill ... for God?

[Dante]

Unrealisitc it may be, but to some of us that is god in a nutshell. The question assumed that the one making the demand was god, and so I took that assumption as well. Questioning whether or not the speaker is god is not to answer the question, it is to delve into a tangent. One that has been dealt with before and will be dealt with again, but does not need to be dealt with here.

Of course we could apply those standards to God, but I believe we will conclude that He is good.

And if we don't?

Depends which rules are used, I suppose.

I've never been a fan of the idea that life promotes order (and thus reduces entropy). If life's purpose (or a side effect of life was) the crystalisation of matter, then perhaps the idea might have some merit. Given that life is a constant series of tiny chemical explosions however, it seems doubtful.

And even if that were true, then humans would certainly not be the most orderly example. Viruses crystalise, and thus have much lower entropy.

Heh heh. Viruses are the greatest good. That would be amusing...

[veK]

I don't believe in (any) god - and if there was a voice speaking to me from above to kill somebody this would only confirm my opinion that there is no god. I would rather check on what I smoked or drunk last but not go out and kill - besides: defintely not for somebody else...

[Dude_Doc]

I thought of something some days ago, about this question. Okay, so: God, for one reason or another, comes down and asks a person (you) to kill another person. Isn't this a first point that somehow makes God inferior to another person? God is this almighty being who created all of everything, and somehow a person stands in His way, or in the way of one important plan that can't possibly bypass the problem in any way?

Secondly, the question seems to imply those who believe in God. But since this is paranormal area, then probably the power at work here is so great that any unbeliever would become faithful. But! What if the person asked (and this is only if God chooses someone random, or if the question happens to end up at this person) is a great sinner, a murderer or child molestor? He's going to hell anyway! Then what can God do? What if the person says no, that he somehow refuses to kill this person? Now this person has God in a situation. If he doesn't kill, he will go to hell, and God's ultimate plan will fail. The world is depending on this person, this killer. God's ultimate plan, maybe concieved and calculated through billions upon billions of years prior Big Bang, will go under.

If so, then God didn't realize the "problem" with free will, thus his great plan and his whole creation is flawed because of this trouble. Thus - God can not be allknowing, much less the perfect being.

Heh, a little bit far fetched, but this question is simply illogical. Besides, would you get a choice to do it or not? I believe that throughout the Bible we can find that God never asked, or that if the character in question didn't do this thing for Him, then there wouldn't be much of a choice left (like, being sent to hell).

Maybe we have many lives, but we've just got one soul, and I don't want to "unexist" by disobeying the greatest authority there is...

[Acriku]

I thought of something some days ago, about this question. Okay, so: God, for one reason or another, comes down and asks a person (you) to kill another person. Isn't this a first point that somehow makes God inferior to another person? God is this almighty being who created all of everything, and somehow a person stands in His way, or in the way of one important plan that can't possibly bypass the problem in any way?

God can quite simply do it himself, or work around it so it wouldn't have to be done. That's not the point of this question.

Secondly, the question seems to imply those who believe in God. But since this is paranormal area, then probably the power at work here is so great that any unbeliever would become faithful. But! What if the person asked (and this is only if God chooses someone random, or if the question happens to end up at this person) is a great sinner, a murderer or child molestor? He's going to hell anyway! Then what can God do? What if the person says no, that he somehow refuses to kill this person? Now this person has God in a situation. If he doesn't kill, he will go to hell, and God's ultimate plan will fail. The world is depending on this person, this killer. God's ultimate plan, maybe concieved and calculated through billions upon billions of years prior Big Bang, will go under.

There would be no point in asking a man who has sinned greatly, and never asked for forgiveness, but there is so much point in asking one who did ask. A test, perhaps. Of faith, and morals.

If so, then God didn't realize the "problem" with free will, thus his great plan and his whole creation is flawed because of this trouble. Thus - God can not be allknowing, much less the perfect being.

Well the problem with free will and God's omniscience will have to be saved for another thread...

Heh, a little bit far fetched, but this question is simply illogical. Besides, would you get a choice to do it or not? I believe that throughout the Bible we can find that God never asked, or that if the character in question didn't do this thing for Him, then there wouldn't be much of a choice left (like, being sent to hell).

It isn't illogical at all. It is well within the realms of what God can and would do. Of course there is a choice, otherwise there would be no point. What God would do if the person refused, I do not know. I'm not one to pretend to understand God's nature, except from previous incidents where his nature was shown.

[Dante]

Just because God asks someone to kill someone else, does not mean that his goal in the target's death. He may be asking in order to bring about a completely different sequence of events, or have a plan that is catalysed by the request (or the deed) but does not end there.

For example, God asks A to kill B. God, being all knowing, knows that A will refuse. A meets B, decides that they are a nice person, and does so. A then, because they met B that day and didn't go home the normal route, narrowly avoids being blown up in a freak accident. A then goes on to do great deeds and wonderful things with B by their side. God's plan is served.

Or, God asks C to kill D. C, being a devout believer, immediately agrees and goes round to D's house that night and stabs them to death. D, then, is saved from being fired the next day, going crazy, and killing a whole shopping centre full of people; before being shot by a vigilante owl.

Now I'll grant that both of these situations are unlikely, but they are both examples of how a plan could be served without the end goal being 'This person must die.' For those who might have trouble with the situations, the motice in the first situation is to save A's life and bring them to do good things with B; while the motive in the second situation is to save D from sin and prevent mass murder.

God's plan would not depend on the actions of a single entity, or a single request. I think I'd be inclined to give him more credit than that.

Disclaimer: The above post is refering to a purely theoretical argument. The poster does not believe anything he just wrote, or in god, but for the sake of argument is pretending that he does.

[Dude_Doc]

God can quite simply do it himself, or work around it so it wouldn't have to be done. That's not the point of this question.

Yes, but I believe everyone here would agree to kill in God's order. And even if they wouldn't, then that must be a part of God's plan, right? He must already know your answer long before He even asks you.

There would be no point in asking a man who has sinned greatly, and never asked for forgiveness, but there is so much point in asking one who did ask. A test, perhaps. Of faith, and morals.

But it is the idea of the question. I assume God asks you if you can kill this person, and that the choice is up to you. You have a great decision in your hand, and not God. 

Well the problem with free will and God's omniscience will have to be saved for another thread...

But it has to do with the question. With all of His powers, would He really ask one man to kill another in order for His plan to go forth? I mean that either God's plan stops at the moment He asks you, or He has planned an outcome for each answer, thus your choice does not really matter. This means that if He has not planned beyond the point He asks you, then He can not simply be "God". But if He has planned beyond the question, then He could be God and your answer/decision has nothing to do with it. 

It is well within the realms of what God can and would do.

You mean that God would actually ask someone to kill another person?

Of course there is a choice, otherwise there would be no point. What God would do if the person refused, I do not know. I'm not one to pretend to understand God's nature, except from previous incidents where his nature was shown.

Yes, but my point is that either your choice is already known to God (and is therefore just an illusion), or that God couldn't see this happen and therefore can not be God. Then, what is the choice? If you go to hell no matter the choice, then there isn't any choice either, since there would be no point for you to kill the person. Or, if He offered you a place in heaven, then the choice is obvious. The point I'm making here is that God must know your answer in order to be God - therefore, you don't have a choice.

[Acriku]

Yes, but I believe everyone here would agree to kill in God's order. And even if they wouldn't, then that must be a part of God's plan, right? He must already know your answer long before He even asks you.

If we truly have free will, then you're wrong and the question is valid. If we do not, then I agree the question is pointless.

Look, the entire basis of the question rests on there being free will, and that it is the God described in the Bible asking it. And sure he would ask it, he's done it before. Is it part of a grand master plan? Who knows. You're not concerned with that. You're faced with a command from God to kill another person. The true matter of the dilemma lies in whether or not your morals (assuming they prohibit killing another person) can withstand even God's commands. And if God asked it, can we feel void of any responsibility for it due to the sheer consequences of disobeying God? It's a fascinating dilemma that is being tossed aside with irrelevant questions.

[Dude_Doc]

If we truly have free will, then you're wrong and the question is valid. If we do not, then I agree the question is pointless.

No, because if we have true free will, then God can not be perfect because the answer is something He didn't count on. And because it is "the God" we're talking about, He must know about the answer. But the dilemma can still apply to it.

The true matter of the dilemma lies in whether or not your morals (assuming they prohibit killing another person) can withstand even God's commands.

The thing is that we already have killed people. Do you see the American troops in Iraq suffering from killing other people? Or cops. Doctors take huge responsibility and understanding when a person can die in their care. Hell, our way of living is killing thousands of people every year in the poor part of the world.

If anyone can become a soldier, then anyone can also kill another person. It all matters what's on the stake. Who's holding the ball. If the command is simply a command, and we don't know what is going to happen if we disobey, then we assume something bad is going to happen, like going to hell. The thing is, I don't see much choice in this question.

[Edric O]

I've never been a fan of the idea that life promotes order (and thus reduces entropy). If life's purpose (or a side effect of life was) the crystalisation of matter, then perhaps the idea might have some merit. Given that life is a constant series of tiny chemical explosions however, it seems doubtful.

And even if that were true, then humans would certainly not be the most orderly example. Viruses crystalise, and thus have much lower entropy.

Heh heh. Viruses are the greatest good. That would be amusing...

Ah, but you see, the great advantage of an ethical theory based on a physical phenomenon like entropy is that it is NOT open to interpretation. It is a scientific fact - not an "idea" or an "opinion" - that life represents an accumulation of anti-entropy.

Your view of anti-entropy as "order" and of order as crystalisation is wrong on two accounts. First, anti-entropy is not so much order as complexity. Order can exist in the simplest of forms. You can even imagine a simple orderly pattern of atoms in a universe that is on the brink of heat death. We often talk about entropy as "chaos" and its opposite as "order", but what we really mean is simplicity vs. complexity. Or unorganised randomness vs. complicated patterns and processes.

Speaking of processes, you are wrong on a second point as well: Entropy isn't measured in terms of static, unchanging 3-dimensional objects. It is measured on all 4 dimensions of the spacetime continuum. An object that remains the same over time - like a crystal, or a virus - is much simpler and therefore more entropic than an object that is constantly changing according to a complex pattern - like a human brain. Crystals and viruses have much higher entropy than living things.

[GUNWOUNDS]

thanks for clearing that up Edrico... i know dante isnt the only person to have assumed that, its quite a common misconception.

[gunner154]

So viruses have a higher entropy because it defies conventional patterns, while the human brain continues to follow a pattern?

I'm a little confused at that point. What pattern exists in the human mind? What if the viruses are following their pattern which is, essentially, no pattern?

[Dante]

On the first point I concede; entropy was taught to me in terms of chaos and order rather than complexity and simplicity. So essentially, complexity would equate to 'good' and simplicity to 'bad,' as simple things have high entropy? What a horrible thought.

However, that would also imply that viruses and crystals, having high entropy, are evil. That's just nonsensical.

How could order equate to complexity anyway? The more complex something becomes, the more it tends toward chaotic behaviour. A crystal, staying the same over time in a precise pattern, seems far simpler and thus preferable to a complex system, where things get messy.

Entropy (chaos) is reduced as temperature is decreased. That's what I was taught. In other words, as activity of molecules decreases, so too does complexity as the substance forms immobile crystals. It is believed that at absolute zero (which I think we all know is 0K), entropy would reach zero as well. If one is going to attach any theory of morality to such a principle, which I personally think is highly inadvisable, then surely it would make sense to call entropy (complexity, chaos, whatever) evil and spend the rest of your life in the Antarctic. It's not 0K, but you won't get much closer without dying.

[nemafakei]

Do remember that while the second law od thermodynamics is a law, it is only a law for freemoving particles not under the influence of forces like gravity, and it is still dependant on probability. Once you start talking about entropy and humans and so forth, you have to factor in all sorts of things - formation of solids, gravity... it soon becomes as irrelevant on a philosophical basis as relativity is.