Euthyphro's Dilemma and The Problem of Omnipotence

The Problem Stated

a.     God has a concept of good.

b.     This concept has a normative effect insofar as he prescribes moral guidelines to his creatures based on this notion.

c.      But the very existence of this notion raises a question.

                                               i.     Does God decide what is good?

OR     

                                              ii.     Does God recommend what is already good?

·      Both of these views present a problem for belief in divinities in general, but the focus of this work will be towards the problem as it pertains to the Christian faith. God, as understood in the biblical sense, is a benevolent being and therefore, his actions must be understood as being good.  This “dilemma” questions the origins of this good.

·      If one accepts premise i., the good is by definition arbitrary.  If God simply constitutes what is good and what is bad, there is nothing substantive keeping God from appointing rape, for example, as a moral act. (If he appealed to some other sense of good, premise ii. would hold, not i.)  Thus, if God did constitute rape as morally good, we would be morally obligated to perform such acts and failure to do so would be classified as sin.  Therefore, it is unsatisfactory to claim that God simply decides what good is. 

·      Similarly, accepting premise ii. as veridical also presents problems.  Operating on St. Anselm’s’ definition of God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”, God is necessarily the greatest being possible.  Therefore, it necessarily follows that there is nothing greater than God.  However, if God recommends what is already good, he is appealing to something other and higher than himself, thus invalidating this definition.  So if one wishes accepts premise ii. God is not a supreme force.

·      Opponents to theism claim that this “dilemma” makes belief in God extremely problematic.  If this claim were a true dilemma, I would be inclined to agree.  But it is a misunderstanding of logic to view this argument as a true dilemma.  Presenting an argument as only having (in this case) two options, when in all actuality there are more, is a logical fallacy (a false dilemma).   For example, if I say “If the coffee isn’t cold, then it’s hot.” I am guilty of presenting a false dilemma.  It is entirely possible for the coffee to be lukewarm, thus making it neither cold nor hot.  Therefore, since a third option exists, it is not a true dilemma. That being considered, what could be a possible third option for Euthyphro’s Dilemma? 

·      The third option I will consider is this

i.                Good is an attribute of God.

·      Many people have presented a similar premise by saying “Good is apart of God’s nature.  The problem with this theory is that it is ambiguous and it only backs up the dilemma one step.  The question then changes to “Does God’s nature decide what is good and bad, or does it recommend what is already good?”  Although this is option is headed in the right direction, it does not solve the problem. 

·      BUT, if the theory of nature fails, how does making good an attribute solve the dilemma? To get to the crux of the matter, a few premises must be presented and considered.

a.     God is eternal.

                                                                                            i.     That is, God has always existed. Therefore, he was not created (not even self-created).

b.     God is unchanging.

                                                                                            i.     For imperfection presupposes change.  If God needed to change, he would be either less perfect before or after the change.  There are not differing levels of perfection. 

Therefore, if God is eternally perfect (which we will accept for the sake of argument) he must be eternally unchanging, i.e., constant.   

c.      Thus, if God is eternally unchanging, his attributes are unchanging as well.

d.     Additionally, if God is unchanging and was not created (not even by himself) he cannot, in a sense, control his attributes.

Conclusion

If premise d. holds, (and I understand that every Christian will not accept this, seeing as some believe that God can do any and everything. This however is an unbiblical and illogical assumption, but it is a different discussion that I will not go into now.) God does not have control of his attributes, seeing that they are eternal and unchanging. Therefore, if God has no control of his attributes, he does not constitute what good is (although it is a part of his nature) and he does not appeal to something outside of himself for his concept of good.  This leaves the dilemma presented with a possible third option, thus rendering it a false dilemma.