Euthyphro dilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

1) If someone else created it, both its existence and its goodness is dependent on that someone fulfilling the conditions for its existence. No existence => no goodness.

Fine, fine..Igno, I see no reason to bicker.  Goodness is created.  Option 2.  

2) I am curious... "what", exactly, is being-good in regard to a non-existing thing?

Depends on who you ask, I suppose.  

3) Unless, of course, existing is itself inherently good. I think it is.

Conflation into meaningless, meanwhile the dilemma remains unresolved.  

4) If you give existence to a thing, then you have fulfilled all of the conditions necessary for that thing to be-the-thing-it-is. Your giving-it-existence AS the thing-it-is is the very thing which gives the thing its goodness. I'm not sure how you are separating the concepts in any real way besides words.

Delicious irony.  

5) If goodness is created arbitrarily, then it is the second option. If the goodness of created things participates in goodness itself (i.e. it is neither arbitrary nor subsistent) then its a third option.

If there -is- a "goodness itself", it's a version of option 1.  

6) A non-existent non-profit that feeds people is not a good thing, it is not-a-thing-at-all. Someone has to create it if its inherent goodness is ever going to-be. IF someone creates it, it will necessarily be good. Which is to say, on the condition that it is made to exist, it will unconditionally be good. If you are saying that the "form" of inherently good things are being-good somewhere somehow... where and how do you propose that is?

Bickering about existence won't resolve a dilemma of goodness.

7) Affirming one over and against the other is the same as proposing an incomplete account as a full one. Both are partially true under different aspects, which means there MUST be a third option: participated goodness aka concurrent goodness - God creates things as having their own goodness by participation. Things are good because God creates them as participating in goodness itself (therefore, it isn't arbitrarily willed goodness, but rather goodness corresponding to goodness itself), and through participation in goodness itself, things have their own inherent goodness (therefore, it isn't radical independence of goodness, but rather, a true inherent goodness existentially dependent on it's essential source).

If goodness isn't arbitrarily defined, if there is a goodness itself, then the creation of some thing does not..in any meaningful sense, impart it with goodness or create goodness. It creates a thing that is good.  We're simply describing a creative act in conformity to that standard.  Option 1.

Anything that conforms to that standard would be a good thing. It needn't proceed from your god to be so, and your god is itself only a good thing if it conforms to that standard. If your god was otherwise it would not be good, and creating things that participate in his him-ness would not be good. I guess it;s just a lucky coincidence that god is good (except when he isn't, lol).

If instead, you insist that it must proceed from your god and that the creative act of your god (or anyone, really) creates "goodness"...then goodness has been arbitrarily defined as whatever proceeds form your god and is in conformity with it's nature. Option 2.

The problem with theological nominalist ethics in christianity has always been it's allegiance to modified forms of voluntarism, and it's adherents dissatisfaction with the same.