The debate about the Euthyphro Dilemma has many varying points but I think that the idea that God loves things because they are good is the most plausible reason. Good and morality exists without God, just like Louise Anthony says in her article, but people are too consumed with the perception that all atheists are not moral or good. People connect that atheist connotation with there being no good or morality if one does not believe in God. She makes it a point to argue that the DIT (Divine Independent Theory) is more relevant and logical than the DCT (Divine Command Theory). Agreeing with the DCT, saying that something is good because God loves it has many falsities in it. For example, such as the example that Anthony herself uses, what if God says that it is good for one to kill its child, does it really mean that it is good and moral. If one depends on things only being moral and good if God loves it, then they truly aren’t a moral person in regards to the true meaning and characteristics of being moral (Goodness without God). God has the ability to change his mind, so what if he decides to change what’s moral and what’s not? Then, according to the DCT, one’s idea of morality is changing as well. According to DIT, morality and goodness is separated from God’s existence.  This theory relates to the reader that morality is prevalent in the world even in people who aren’t God believing. Anthony argues that atheists are the most careful people in regards to their actions and trying to be the most moral and good people that they can. She claims that religion offers people a safety net in a way to make mistakes and believe that they’ll be forgiven. Atheists on the other hand are more careful of their actions and decisions because they have the live with them without the guarantee of forgiveness. This, to me, helps prove that morality and true goodness is fully capable of occurring with or without God. This also helps prove and support that God loves things because they are good. His love for something exists because of its internal and true goodness in regards to morality. Certain things are considered fundamentally moral regardless of one’s religion or one’s varying ideas of God. This, also, furthermore proves God loves things because they are morally good.

I felt that both Rowe and Hick both had valid arguments and both supported their logic with soundness but I felt that Hick was more open to the logic behind a possible counter argument than Rowe was. Hick, throughout his paper, mentioned and argued for both points–God’s existence and His non-existence. Hick, in my opinion, made it a point to show his readers both perspectives which I think made the excerpt better to understand and yet, he still manages to get his point across. He argues the existence of God very logically. He basically mentions all the examples that typically  are used to argue God’s existence then he continues to use logically charged arguments to state his view points. I think that Hick’s use of the various view points and how he uses it to prove his real argument give him more validity than Rowe’s did. Rowe just stated many hypothetical examples with not many counterarguments. I think because of that, it just showed one perspective that a counterargument would be easy to use. Hick, on the other hand, I felt used many more common viewpoints and a logical argument to back up his ideas. He also, at the same time, never says that God flat out exists, he just offers arguments and validity that suggest that God most likely does exist. In my opinion, I think that Hick had better logical reasoning and enforcement of his ideas.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!