Plato's famous dialogue Euthyphro recounts a conversation between Socrates and a man named Euthyphro and concerns the nature of "good" and is widely applied to question the existence of God. Socrates asks Euthyphro a series of questions regarding piety and its relationship to the Greek pantheon of gods. Ultimately, the dilemma Euthyphro faces is this; Is something good because it is loved by the gods or do the gods love something because it is good? This is the point that many philosophers who disagree with those who adhere to theistic teachings (I will focus on Christianity) use to attempt to discredit the existence of an ultimate being or creator. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The primary use of Euthyphro's dilemma to attack believers is based on a false dilemma. The two choices are therefore: what is good is arbitrary and is based exclusively on the will of some being; God is bound to a moral code like the one humans tend to agree on. If one adopts the idea that right and wrong are based solely on the whim of an unknowable God, then the morality upon which our laws and practices are based is essentially worthless. This presents a problem for many who face this dilemma since we “know” that certain acts such as theft, murder, arson…etc. are wrong and immoral but, depending on the dilemma, God could simply choose that such acts are actually right and morally honest. This is especially troubling to the believer since God is taught that He is omnipotent and must be obeyed in all things, yet the alternative is equally unfavorable. If one chooses that God is indeed entirely good and bound to our own moral standards, this gives peace of mind to those who are concerned about the side effects of a bipolar creator, but presents a profound problem that seems to undermine the foundations of Christian teachings. God is believed to be omnipotent – ​​or omnipotent – ​​and above all things; if God can be influenced by established moral standards, then this belief is categorically false. For many who wish to defend the existence of the Christian God this decision is perplexing and in fact there is no correct answer. However, it has its problems which lead me to assume that Euthyphro's dilemma presents no reason to doubt God's existence and, in fact, there is more reason to believe than not. Euthyphro's dilemma is structured to offer only two possible options which are both detrimental to biblical teachings. However, these are not the only options to choose from; that's why it's fallacious. The fundamental problem with the dilemma is that it misrepresents the connection between good and God according to Christian beliefs. The believer should affirm that, first, there is indeed a moral standard and that morality is not arbitrarily decided by God. Second, this moral standard is not above God but is inherently an extension of his nature. In this way it is possible to circumvent Euthyphro's dilemma. A critic might argue that the reasoning for this response is circular in that by stating that goodness is a quality of God, one is simply stating that God has the “good” nature that God has; essentially redefining the good in transcendent terms. This counterargument is unfounded since the statement “a characteristic of God” is not the same as defining God or “good.” God is not good in the way that a woman giving birth is a mother; God is as good as a mountain is solid. Just as the quality “solid” and a mountain are not the same thing –for something does not need to be a mountain to be solid – “goodness” is simply an essential quality of God. Now, having successfully defended themselves from Plato, the believer feels vindicated and justified in their beliefs. However, Euthyphro's dilemma and discussion of the root of moral goodness illuminate another problem with an all-powerful and all-powerful God; bad. The very existence of evil seems to dispel the theory of a just God since the idea of ​​a being, who is the embodiment of goodness, that allows evil to spread throughout the world seems contradictory. An in-depth study of Christian theology can once again help provide an explanation to the problem of evil. The first part of the believer's refutation is based on “Soul-Making”, a concept that John Hick talks about at length in his famous work Evil and the God of Love. Soul creation is essentially the process by which people come to believe in God, particularly through hardship and experiencing the evils of the world. This is a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith since the ultimate goal of our finite existence is to develop a personal relationship with God which cannot be achieved in a paradise world, free of evil and pain, where humans experience only the deepest pleasures . The only way for humans to truly overcome their selfish nature and develop the most desirable qualities that demonstrate goodness is to subject themselves to stress and pain. In other words, a world in which the creation of a soul is possible must share many of the qualities present in our world, evil and all; as Hick says, a world must have “obstacles to overcome, tasks to accomplish, goals to achieve, setbacks to endure, problems to solve, dangers to face.” This belief is supported not only by Christian dogma but by ancient and modern pop culture. Think of the many fairy tales and epics in which the hero must endure great trials and tribulations to develop certain virtues that make him righteous and of great moral character. Remember how many superhero stories depict a young hero developing through painful experiences. This further confirms the possibility that a world containing evil and an all-good creator can coexist. The idea of ​​the creation of the soul leads to another basis of the Christian faith that supports the duality of good and evil; free will. The belief that man was created with free will is a hotly debated topic among both atheists and believers. Suppose that humans have free will and that our actions are not deterministic; to argue effectively we must first define what free will is. Avoiding details – since there are a multitude of definitions that vary minimally – free will can be defined as a cause and effect relationship; So I think so, to play on Descartes' words. So, if human beings are truly free, then each individual is in control of their own actions which cannot be determined by any law or external being unless willed by the individual. This means that human beings are not bound by God's inherent characteristics, and due to man's selfish nature, it is inevitable that some human beings will choose to exercise their free will in ways that cause harm to others. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay A famous argument for belief in God is Pascal's Wager in which Pascal argues that it is in one's own interest to believe in God. On the one hand we have the believer who – if God exists – will go to heaven and enjoy everyone the pleasures there.