Hypothetical Premise:
Assume a universe in which God’s existence is not necessary for the universe to continue functioning. The universe will keep going whether God exists or not. In this hypothetical, God can be harmed or even cease to exist, permanently.
Scenario
A runaway train is approaching a fork in the tracks.
North Track:
10 adults are tied to the rails.
If you pull the lever toward the north track, the train will kill these 10 adults.
Additionally, God will permanently cease to exist, for reasons not under your control.
South Track:
10 children are tied to the rails.
If you pull the lever toward the south track, the train will kill these 10 children.
God will survive.
You cannot untie anyone. The train cannot be stopped. You must choose:
Option A: North Track
Kill 10 adults + God ceases to exist forever.
Option B: South Track
Kill 10 children + God survives.
You must choose one or the other.
Guiding Questions
Which track do you choose, and why?
Does God’s survival have any moral weight compared to the human lives?
Does the age of the victims (adults vs. children) matter more or less than the divine consequence?
Does the scenario expose whether God is considered a moral foundation or a moral stakeholder?
Does the fact that the universe continues without God change the evaluation of God’s moral importance?
Conclusion
Preventing suffering is morally primary. Children are capable of suffering; God, in this hypothetical, is not. Metaphysical status does not automatically equal moral worth. No cosmic or future harm results from God’s cessation. Any “badness” in losing God is abstract and not morally serious.
Therefore:
You should save the children, even though it means God ceases to exist. If there is any moral cost in doing so, it is small compared to the immediate, preventable suffering of the children.
Jesus teaches that God should come first, saying, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37) and “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). These passages emphasize that devotion to God should be the highest priority in one’s life. However, in the hypothetical trolley scenario, putting God first would require sacrificing ten children who are sentient, vulnerable, and capable of suffering. Following Jesus’ teaching blindly in this context would elevate the abstract value of God over the immediate, preventable suffering of real beings. A careful moral analysis suggests that, while devotion to God is important in general, the ethical weight of preventing tangible harm to innocent children can justifiably override abstract prioritization, showing that moral responsibility sometimes requires protecting beings in need even if it conflicts with theological hierarchy.