Disclaimer: I'm a theist and this thread isn't to say morality isn't objective, it aims to highlight problems with the divine command theory. A long surviving philosophical quandary (problem) to believing in God-dictated morality is the Euthyphro problem. It was posed by Socrates to Euthyphro in a discourse and it goes thus: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or it is pious because it is loved by the gods?" Simply put: "Is something right because it is commanded by God or God commands something because it is right?" While this doesn't seem like it is a problem, it poses a huge one regardless of what your answer is. To explain how, I'll take each horn of the problem and explain why it is a problem. 1. Something is right because God commands it: You might be compelled to think God only commands appealing things like "do not kill", "do not commit adultery" e.t.c. but those of us who know our Old Testament, would agree that God does command killing when he feels like it. Now, imagine a hypothetical scenario where God appears to you and says he's reversing the 10 commandments and you can now do their opposites and not obeying this instruction would be a sin. Would you? 2. God commands something because it is right: This implies that there is something above God. How? God commanding something because it is right means he cannot command what is wrong, hence he is obliged by such circumstance. If God could never at some point command what he pleases, it means God like us is obliged to a moral standard and is thus below it. It means morality is what God has just discovered and uses. It is not right because he commands it, he commands it because it is right. This makes God superfluous or unnecessary with regards to the grand scope of morality. It means if God did not ever exist, morality would still exist because it is independent of God's command. Your thoughts?