I’ve been quite impressed with most of Greg Koukl’s work. I read his piece on Euthyphro’s dilemma today–and it is excellent. I encountered this dilemma back in a college philosophy class and didn’t know how to properly answer it at the time. This is something you may encounter, if you haven’t already. Even if you never encounter it, it is good to think these things through for your own understanding (in my opinion).
Bertrand Russell expressed the problem like this: “If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that He made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in
their essence logically anterior to God.”
Read the full article here: