Guided Reading Questions #8: concept of God
1. Define the concept of God. What characteristics are often associated with the concept of
God? (Answer this question from your general knowledge, not from the reading)
The concept of God is an eternal being of light, love, and peace who is considered perfect and the reason
for the universe.
James Rachels: “God and Goodness”
1. According to Rachels, how do Jewish and Christian traditions present God? How is human freedom
related to what God demands?
According to Rachels, in Jewish and Christian traditions, God is a lawgiver who created the universe and
life for a purpose that is unknown to us. He created humans as free agents, which means we have the
choice to either accept or reject God's laws.
2. What is the “divine command theory”?
The Divine Command Theory is a moral theory that asserts that what is morally right or wrong is
determined by God's commands.
3. According to Rachels, what is valuable about the divine command theory?
According to Rachels, this theory has value because it provides a solution to the problem of subjectivity
and objectivity in ethics.
4. What is the problem of this theory for atheists?
The problem with this theory for atheists is that since they do not believe in God or any higher power,
they would not feel obligated to follow any commandments or commitments made by God.
5. What is Socrates’ skeptical question in Euthyphro?
The skeptical question asked by Socrates is “Can what is really right be considered to be God
commandments.”
6. What are two problems of accepting that “conduct is right because God commands it?”
The first problem is that it implies that God commands us to do the right thing, so either actions are right
because God commands them or God commands them because they are already right. This creates a
dilemma known as the Euthyphro dilemma, which asks whether something is good because God says it's
good or if God says something is good because it's inherently good.
7. According to Rachels, what difficulties disappear if we accept the second option, “God commands
right conduct because it is right”?
These difficulties include the idea that God's commands are arbitrary and not based on any rational or
moral reasoning, and also the problem of explaining why something is right or wrong solely based on
God's command. By accepting that what is right and wrong is dependent on God, we can avoid these
difficulties and understand that God's commands are a result of his wisdom in knowing what is best.
8. According to Rachels, what is the problem?
If we choose the second option, then we are abandoning other non-theological conceptions of morality
which do not rely on God's existence or commands.
9. What is Rachels’ conclusion? Do you agree? Why or why not?
The conclusion of Rachels is that a standard of right and wrong that is not dependent on God's will must
be accepted. This means that morality should not be based solely on what God commands, but rather
there should be an objective standard for determining what is right and wrong.
George Mavrodes: “God’s Omnipotence”
1. What example of the attempts to refute God’s omnipotence does Mavrodes give?
Mavrodes gives an example of attempts to refute God's omnipotence by posing two questions: "Can God
draw a square circle?" and "Can God create a stone too heavy for even himself to lift?"
2. How does St. Thomas (Aquinas) answer this? What does it mean that a concept is self-contradictory?
St. Thomas Aquinas argues that when we talk about something, it should only refer to objects, actions or
situations whose descriptions are not self-contradictory. Self-contradictory concepts are those that lead us
to the same conclusion no matter how we answer the question posed. In other words, they are
meaningless and do not correspond to anything in reality. Aquinas suggests that such concepts may arise
from a lack of power or understanding on our part and should be avoided in philosophical discussions.
3. What, according to Mavrodes, is “a more involved problem”? Why is this problematic? Is this selfcontradictory?
Mavrodes argues that the question of whether God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it is a
more involved problem because it challenges the traditional concept of God's omnipotence. If God creates
such a rock and cannot lift it, then he is not all-powerful, which contradicts the idea of an omnipotent
God.
4. Why does Mavrodes think that it is self-contradictory? Explain.
Mavrodes thinks that the statement "a stone too heavy for God to lift" is self-contradictory because it
implies that there is something that God cannot do, which contradicts the traditional concept of an allpowerful and omnipotent God.
5. What is Mavrodes’ response to an objector who holds that “the phrase ‘a stone too heavy for God to
lift’” is not self-contradictory?
Mavrodes argues that some objectors will hold onto their conclusion regardless of any evidence or
reasoning presented to them. Therefore, attempting to convince them otherwise may be futile.