Final answer:
Option B, 'God's commands have no basis in reason,' challenges the voluntarist option of divine command theory by implying arbitrariness in moral commands, creating a conflict with the perception of a reasonable moral framework and questioning the omnipotence of a deity.
Step-by-step explanation:
Option B, God's commands have no basis in reason, represents a challenge to the voluntarist option of divine command theory. Divine command theory posits that an act is morally good simply because God commands it, and morally bad if God forbids it. This perspective raises several issues, including the potential for any command—no matter how seemingly immoral by human standards—to be deemed good if said to be commanded by God. For instance, acts such as child sacrifice could be seen as morally acceptable if they are divinely commanded.
One of the core challenges to divine command theory is the Euthyphro problem, which questions whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is inherently good. If the former is true, it appears arbitrary and without reason, undermining the omnipotence and sovereignty of God. This challenge suggests that there might be an existing standard of good that even God follows, which would imply that divine commands are based on reason after all.