For thousands of years, God was taken as an indisputable given. Even today, many intelligent philosophers make considerable efforts to preserve as much of the Judeo-Christian depiction of God as possible in a way consistent with their argument. The modified divine command theory is no different. It offers an explanation of how God's commandment defines morality while attempting to avoid the problems that accompany a traditional view of this theory, namely the Euthyphro dilemma. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Divine command theory is an ethical theory rooted in religion. He claims that morality depends on God and that we are morally obligated to obey his commandments. To accept a theory like this, we must first establish the principle that there is sufficient evidence for belief in God (whom we will define as having three traditional characteristics: omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience). However, I argue that there is actually more evidence to the contrary. Although there are many ways to demonstrate this, I would like to point out the logical problem of evil as proof of the contradictory nature of said God. If we begin by assuming that God exists and is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, we wonder why He would allow His faithful children to suffer. A defense of God holds that we must experience suffering to appreciate the pleasures of life. However, this claim is insufficient because it fails to explain the disproportionate amounts of suffering relative to people's moral character. Furthermore, this is rendered invalid because it contradicts the idea that heaven is a pure heaven existing independently of hell. Although there are many other assertions and refutations to be made on this topic, as the problem of evil is not the main focus of this article, I will continue and hope to have at least somewhat established that the God's existence cannot be taken as a given, in part due to the contradictory nature between its defining characteristics and earthly human experience. However, even if we choose to accept the existence of God, there are still problems with the modified divine command theory, even if it manages to circumvent the Euthyphro somewhat. dilemma. This dilemma is posed by Plato in his text Euthyphro. He, in the voice of Socrates, asks: "Is the pious person loved by the gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the gods?" Analyzed from a monotheistic perspective, we face the same dilemma. There is a disjunction: either God commands us to perform certain actions because they are morally right, or the actions are morally right because God commands them. There are objections to either path. If God commands certain actions because they are morally right, then morality is independent of God. However, if actions are morally right because God commands them, then morality is arbitrary. If we assume that actions are made ethical by the will of God, we may know the origin of morality, but we do not have a clear system for understanding how to be moral. In other words, we cannot determine for ourselves whether an action is morally correct or not without a command from God, which is why the standard of morality is ambiguous. Furthermore, God, an all-powerful being, surely has the power to change one's mind. Thus, morality becomes unstable.