Euthyphro dilemma

[Ignorant]

In the sort of theism I subscribe to, sure?

That's the problem with theism. The crap in their doctrines are premises rather than conclusions that were reasoned to.

? Come on Ham that isn't fair. We both know that conclusions from other arguments can serve as premises for this one.

---

Notice how the term consistently refers to the thing itself?  This is all I mean when I say that whatever goodness is inherent to a thing is apart from god.  It's intrinsic, innate, in-built, indwelling, inborn, etc.  It wouldn't matter if billy, bob, steve, god, or no-one in particular made it the way it is, the way that it is is what makes it good...and this is whats being asked by the first horn.

Lol. So you agree that these two things can SIMULTANEOUSLY be true:

1) Someone/something (e.g. billy, bob, god, no-one in particular) can be created "the way it is"

AND

2) "The way it is" has own goodness.

?

It is possible that billy-bob makes a thing AS having its own inherent goodness <= option 3

---

"A little something" is all it takes to understand the problem.  Any form of voluntarism is an explicit affirmation of the second proposition in the dilemma. [1] Of will creating the good. [2]  Explicitly affirming one of the two options already present is hardly what I'd call a third option, lol. [3] In any case, doing so presents an issue of meaningful arbitrarity. [4]

1) I am no voluntarist.

2) Voluntarism is the primacy of will over the other faculties. In that view, the goodness of creation is not necessarily related to the goodness of God.

3) See my post to your previous comments.

4) Arbitrary decisions of will! That's voluntarism! I reject it! Yay!