Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

And I repeat you can't simply define god as good regardless of when or where. If you do your arbitrarily attaching the property to him . If you defining the properties he has as good you do so without warrant . So you can keep repeating the same failed point over and over. Or you can get to work solving the dilemma you have thus failed to escape .

---

By saying it can come from somewhere then you are saying that it is contingent.  That is to say it is a property that he could have lacked. This is incorrect. Gods moral character is ESSENTIAL to him. That is why i said it is a part of his nature. That is, there is no possible world in which God could have existed without those attributes. God didn't come to being loving, holy etc by accident or by luck.

Also his nature doesnt come from himself. He didnt decide his own nature.

You are confusing a logical dependency with a temporal dependency.  The good is contingent upon having a certain relationship to God's nature in order for it to qualify as the good.  You've simply asserted that God is good and has always been good.  In order for God to qualify as the source of morals, he must be good in a particular way; not simply be good.   In order for God to be the source of morals, the question is not whether or not God is good, but what logical relationship God has to the good.  If he simply is good by virtue of his properties, whatever they are, then that is indeed an arbitrary logical relationship.  In order for God to be the source of morals, he must have the right sort of relationship to the good.  You've simply dodged the question.  Whether or not God is the source of morals depends upon his relationship to the good.  If the good exists independent of God, and the relationship is that God is good because he meets that standard, then God is not the source of morals.  The question is not "Is God considered good?" but rather "Why is God considered good?"  You've completely failed to answer that question and it is that question which defines the logical relationship between God and the good.  That is the substance of the dilemma, and you've once again failed to meet it.

Both horns have been refuted.

Not even close.  You confused logical with temporal dependency and simply dodged the question by asserting that God is good.  In order for God to be the source of morals, he must have the right sort of relationship to the good.  You didn't address his relationship to the good at all.  You merely offered a definitional argument that God is good by definition.  That doesn't answer the dilemma.

As always Jorm you right on point