Divine command theory

According to the divine command theory of morality, morality comes from God, and anything God says or does is inherently moral. But that raises an important question, as Socrates put it so eloquently:

Is that which is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is that which is pious pious because it is loved by the gods? –¬†Socrates, Euthyphro

That line is now known as the “Euthyphro dilemma”, and for good reason, it raises the issue of the ultimate nature of divine morality. Is divine morality objective or subjective? There are no easy answers to this, and I am afraid I cannot come up with any myself, but this dilemma does beg the ultimate question: If anything God does is inherently moral, does that mean that genocide is moral when God commits genocide? If so, would the Holocaust have been a moral action if it was God who perpetrated it rather than Hitler?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

Leibniz famously stated that everything must have a reason and a cause, and that, metaphysically speaking, it would be impossible for there to such a thing that doesn’t have a reason or a cause. That reason and/or cause doesn’t necessarily have to be of conscious origin, the reason/cause that solar systems form is because of the interplay between the solar nebular and the developing stars within, with most of the dust and gas going to form the star and the rest being essentially leftovers relegated to form the various planetary bodies of the solar system that is being formed from the remnants of the solar nebula.

Nothing of the creation of solar systems can be shown to have had any discernible conscious intervention in the creation of said solar system, and yet we still know the reason solar systems form. Could something of the same be said for the universe, that even though Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason mandates that everything has a reason and a cause, that said reason and cause don’t have to be of conscious, divine origin?

I would be interested to hear the apologist’s attempted rebuttal of this notion, for Occam’s Razor dictates that those explanations that are less parsimonious be discarded in favor of those explanations that are more parsimonious, or require less assumptions, so by using Occam’s Razor, would it be acceptable to state that, per Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason, that said reason the universe exists is less likely to have been of supernatural rather than natural causation?

The Problem of Evil

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he
both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor
willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus

This is a fundamental problem that theists have grappled with for
millennia, if God is all good, then why is there evil in the world?
There has never been a satisfactory answer to the question. This doesn’t
affect all types of deities, since there are some literal gods of
evil, or for believers of misotheism, that God is actively malevolent.
But it does affect the Abrahamic God, who is perhaps the most worshiped
deity in the world today. The Abrahamic God is supposed to be
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but several of
those contradict each other. If God is omniscient, then he knew about
the Holocaust, and he knew that billions of people would be sentenced to
Hell for all eternity for crimes that aren’t infinite in nature, and
many of them had no way of knowing they had committed any damnable sins
in the first place.

Therefore, if God is omniscient, he is not omnibenevolent, and while
some will bring up that God gave people free will, then why punish
people for the sins they’ve committed if he gave them the means to
commit those sins in the first place, and knew about them committing
those sins. Shouldn’t God be held responsible? Furthermore, why is an
all-powerful being, so far above us mere mortals, so narcissistic as to
punish people for not believing in him? Is he that pretty?

If God is omnipotent, then he is not omnibenevolent, since he had the
means to stop evil from ever taking place. If God is omnipresent, then
he is not omnibenevolent, since he supposedly sees everything and is
everywhere at any given time, he would see evil taking place, and if he
is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he would stop those sins
from taking place, but he doesn’t.

God never answers the prayers of people praying that genocide wouldn’t
come onto them. Billions of people across the world are still living in
soul-crushing poverty, and God never helps them, even after they pray,
and pray, and pray for some relief. But God does give a shit where
your car keys are, or whether your local sports team wins the game, but
he doesn’t give a shit about nuclear disarmament, or preventing
nuclear war, or stopping climate change, or ending world hunger, or
ending poverty. Why?