Euthyphro dilemma: Does God command things because they are intrinsically good or....

I think the Euthyphro dilemma proves that God is not needed to explain morality.

I debated this before with a religious member on TSR and it wasn't very successful.

However some Christians would say that God is the source of all good he is 'omibenevolent' therefore he cannot produce evil. How would you respond to this?

Well, this answer in itself creates more questions than answers. We have to then try and comprehend where evil comes from. To pass the buck onto Satan in not helpful as God created Satan and he is only as imperfect as God created him.

Also, if we are assume that God is omnibenevolent, then Gods other attributes become contradictory. As Epicurus said:



If God is benevolent, then we can assume that he is willing to prevent evil. However, as evil still exists and God is benevolent, the only reason this could be so is that God is not omnipotent. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, evil should not exist. Are Christians willing to settle with the assumption that God is not omnipotent in order for God to maintain his benevolence in the face of the existence of evil?

Now a common Christian reply to this is to say that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and that the existence of evil is necessary in creating beings with freewill. However this is not true at all. If man was created wholly good, he could still possess the free will to choose between several different good actions. God did not have to make man susceptible to evil in order to give them freewill.

Also, human freewill fails to take account of natural evil. Earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural evils are completely unrelated to human freewill. Such evils have no basis in a world created by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God.

For evil to exist, God can not be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He is either one or the other.

If God is benevolent, then we can assume that he is willing to prevent evil. However, as evil still exists and God is benevolent, the only reason this could be so is that God is not omnipotent. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, evil should not exist. Are Christians willing to settle with the assumption that God is not omnipotent in order for God to maintain his benevolence in the face of the existence of evil?

I think it must be the 2nd option, because if things are intrinsically good, it's implying that they're good independently on what God thinks of them and hence it begs the question, what or who made those things good in the first place, or how are they intrinsically good?

I very similar to J.L. Mackie 'Evil and Omnipotence'.

A Christians would respond by saying that God is Omni x3 (-benevolent, -potent and -scient).
They would also state that in the beggining the world was in natural state of perfection until the utopia was broken through the 'misuse of free will' thus passing the buck onto Satan-however at the start Satan was a perfect angle until he too misused his free will thus he was banished to the earth subsequently temping Eve to break the promise to God ect...

Moral Evil: through our own misuse of free will.
Natural Evil: the break of the natural state of perfection due to the misuse of free will.

Therefore God can still be Omni x3 subsequently as God is all-good he sent his only son so whoever believes in him will pass from death to life.

But this is assuming that God wants to eradicate evil, so a failure to do so fails him as omnipotent..?

What if he simply observes us creating our own evil? Then he's omnipotent, but choosing not to use it. It doesn't make him malevolent, because the evil is of our own doing and we need to deal with the consequences

Of course this doesn't address natural events, a christian would say that those are simply symptoms of a sick world, to imply that satan created them would infer that god is indeed non omnipotent nor benevolent.

That is because my view was influenced by J.L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

You are basically following the line of the Augustinian Theodicy. The problem is that if God created the perfect universe, then evil should not exist. A flawless creation should not go wrong. So like J.L Mackie's opinion that freewill can be created without the need for evil, then so follows that us humans and the angels (Satan included) could of exercised our freewill without breaking the natural state. A perfect state should remain perfect. The fact that the perfect state was able to collapse shows that all was not perfect to begin with.

But we cannot have true 'free will' if there was not the option to do evil.

Yes the Augustinian Theodicy!.

Ok, let us assume that true freewill requires the option to do evil. The issue with this is that freewill fails to explain natural evil. What has natural evil got to do with our own freewill? How does the Asian Tsunami of 2004 have anything to do with my choices between good and evil?

The Natural State of Perfection created by God in Genesis 1 was ruined through the abuse of the free will thus breaking the natural state of perfection Augustine call this the 'penile consequences of sin' thus evil entered the world.

The Natural State of Perfection created by God in Genesis 1 was ruined through the abuse of the free will thus breaking the natural state of perfection Augustine call this the 'penile consequences of sin' thus evil entered the world.

But that contradicts evolution. Homosapiens are relatively recent on planet earth. The Earth and all its natural phenomenons such as earthquakes and tsunamis pre-date us. So it is illogical to say that our freewill brought about the break in the natural state of the world. Before the first human was around to even commit a sin, there existed natural evil which inflicted untold atrocities on dinosaurs and other creatures which existed long before us.

The Augustinian Theodicy fails to account for natural evil in a world where it is clear that natural evil pre-dates human existence.

But why should other people have to suffer as a result of original sin? Surely if God was omnibenevolent he would want to prevent this?

That's a very powerful critique of the Theordicy, unfortunately I do not know the answer to that. I will ask a more experienced Christian about this!

Thank you for your criticisms I like to challenge my faith

I personally prefer the Irenaean Theodicy over that of the Augustine Theodicy although it does somewhat contradict the Genesis account and the whole belief of original sin. From what I understand, it does still have its basis in Genesis.



Irenaeus saw the world as a path towards achieving Gods image and likeness. Essentially we need to be free beings who grapple with the challenges in order to perfect ourselves. Courage would have no point in a world without danger or difficulty. If we lived in a world without harm or evil, there would be no possibility for humans to exercise heroism or charity. The environment we live in, with all its problems, it intended to assist in the growth of us as free beings. Though the 2004 Tsunami was awful, people from all over the world were united in the desire to help and aid those affected.

I still don't find it answers all the issues perfectly, but I think it better answers the issues of moral evil and natural evil. The other alternative theodicy I know of is Process Theodicy, but that requires a whole alteration in the traditional Christian view of God.

My order of preference is Augustinian>Ireanan>Process.
Process is just awful as it changes the nature of God by saying that that he is not Omnipotent!