Euthyphro's dilemma Euthyphro's dilemma comes from Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro in Plato's Euthyphro. In reality the dilemma takes different forms. The Euthyphro dilemma is based on the question posed by Socrates: “Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say something is good because it is good?” (Plato) These sentences give us very different meanings. In the first part of the dilemma, God appears to be arbitrary. There may be other conditions for something to be good. He doesn't make the rules; it is he who reads for us. God, in fact, cannot do everything; he is bound by certain moral rules that are beyond his power. Furthermore, God is not really necessary in morality because even (Plato, p.3) In fact, we have two options from the above sentences of Euthyphro's dilemma; either morally good actions are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good actions are morally good because they are willed by God. The two alternatives given to the divine command theory are believed to have very deep reasoning. So, if divine command theory is right, then one of the alternatives must be right. It is difficult to define which of the previous points is correct. Much controversy arises over these phrases, because God could say that a hurricane that kills thousands of people is good. So morality seems to be arbitrary. If God made every living being suffer, it would be good. On the other hand, God might say that it is morally right to eat your own children, would that be right? For example, the mother spider is eaten by her own children after giving birth to them. Because God doesn't say that it is morally wrong for spider children to eat their own mother. It cannot be argued that God is good, because by definition it does not fall within the theory of divine command. Thus, God depends on morality. God can make anything good, and there is no deeper reason for what is good. The theory may be right in one sense, but it is completely wrong in the other sense. According to divine command theory, God could have said, for example, 'cruelty for its own sake', and it would have been obligatory for humans to do so. (RAHIMI) we could perhaps think that God as a moral mediator who leaves the people believe that this is not a path of moral goodness. On the other hand, rejecting divine command theory is a belief in morality that leads to the falsification of the understanding of God's power, knowledge, and sovereignty. In both cases, the theist appears to be faced with a contrasting dilemma. Indeed, divine command theory must choose