"

Text moved from article

 has been making extensive changes to the article.  Some of them changed clear and precise to less clear and precise language (such as ""implies that"" to ""leads to the view that""), some changed one stylistic approach to another, and some turned U.K. in to U.S. English, but the main section is this:

""The second horn of the dilemma (known as divine command theory) runs into five main problems. First, it implies that the moral status of things is wildly contingent—if he had wanted to, God could have made rape, murder, and torture morally right. Secondly, it threatens the  normative force of the claim that God is good—it turns into the mere claim that God is consistent, or that God approves of himself. Thirdly, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; to analyze evaluative claims (e.g., that murder is wrong) in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to reduce evaluative claims to mere descriptions of God's activity. Fourthly, it seems to make morality subjective, with moral truths determined by the mere attitudes of an individual. Fifthly, it threatens the conception of God as a  rational being. For, supposing God had a reason for forbidding rape, this reason should also be the reason that rape is wrong. Otherwise, God's decision would have been based on the wrong reason. But if the reason rape is wrong is that God has forbidden it, then it can't be God's reason for forbidding it, on pains of circularity. So God's moral decisions were based either on the wrong reason, or on no reason at all.""

Some of this can usefully added, but some isn't really acceptable: ""is wildly contingent"" is not only unencyclopædic style, but is less clear than ""is arbitrary, based merely upon god's whim"".  It also introduces technical terms where they're not needed (as does ""normative force"" which, in addition, surely misses the target; it's not the normativity of ""god is good"" that's at issue, but its status as a meaningful evaluation).  His or her fourth point isn't very commonly raised, and is surely implicit in the other points.  The final point contains material that could be made use of, but is in fact a discussion of the article's first point.   (Μελ Ετητης) "