Euthyphro dilemma

[SteveII]

That's the point. I don't have any problem with #2. It no longer is the equivalent of "it is right because God commands it". It removes the arbitrary objection. It is good because the nature of God would be the exemplification of goodness, not that his decrees would be good because of other qualities (omniscience for example) or just a desire to do good when it suited him or to achieve some other goal.

The reason it was objected that in the original formulation that the meaning of morals would be arbitrary was because there was no other reason besides the fact that it comes from God for giving it moral weight.  You haven't removed the arbitrariness, you've just moved it down a notch.  There's still no rational reason for accepting God's standards and character other than the fact that they are his.  That makes them arbitrary.  You have no rational justification for your claim that God's nature is not arbitrary.

No, the reason for horn #2 to be objectionable in the original is that God's decrees are arbitrary and therefore morality could be one way at one point and another way at a different point. Yes, I did move it back on step and that makes a big difference. Now, we do not have the possibility that God's decrees (morality) could be one way at one time and some other way at another time. You are right that we are still basing our morality it the nature of God (and therefore God) but every moral system needs an explanatory ultimate--a stopping place that makes sense otherwise every moral system has an infinite regress.

That God is bound to his nature is just the definition of nature. If he was not bound to his moral goodness, then it would not be a nature, it would be a preference. Free will does not mean "can do anything". One's nature would always be a limiting factor to available choices. 

Your God is becoming smaller by the minute.  It is certainly within God's physical power to do evil.  Free will means the ability to do anything within one's power.  If you say he is not free to act within his power, that he is determined by his nature, then you are indeed denying his free will.  "Nature" is just another word for saying that his choices are determined.

For God to be able to do evil he would have to violate his nature (the paradigm of goodness). That is definitionally not possible. If he could, it would not be his nature. Free will is not defined as the ability to do the opposite, but to choose without external constraints. 

The definition of God is the greatest conceivable being.  As I have shown, there is no dilemma with such a concept. If you want to redefine God as something other than the traditional definition, go ahead. It does not apply to me.

You consistently claim to have shown things that you have not indeed shown.  You're the biggest braggart on the block.  Regardless, I've shown in the past that the notion of a greatest conceivable being is incoherent, though you didn't understand the last time so I'm not optimistic that explaining it again will help.  When you say that God is the greatest conceivable being, you're saying that God has all the good qualities.  But goodness is a subjective judgement, so greatest possible being is a judgement made up of subjective judgements.  For every subjective judgement that says X is a great making quality, there is an equally valid subjective judgement which says that X is a bad making quality.  The reason is because qualities and properties are neither good or bad in and of themselves, they only become so when a subject attaches a value to them.  You cannot construct a greatest anything out of properties that are inherently neutral. So "greatest conceivable being" has no meaning other than as a religious catchphrase.

Greatest Conceivable Being theology does not define God as having all the "good" qualities. It defines God as having all "great-making" properties.  Moral perfection is better than moral defect. We don't actually need to know what moral perfection is, only that it is better than moral defect (which is obviously so). So, no subjective judgement needed on our part. 

I don't agree.  If part of the definition of God means that his moral nature would be the exemplification of moral goodness, that means that moral goodness has reasoning behind it. It can not be there are more than one set of exemplifications of moral goodness. God's moral nature is an objective standard.

You're gonna argue with the definition of objective now?  Good luck with that.  If God's actions are determined by his "nature", which is whatever it is that God reasons with, then his nature is indeed subjective.  God's "nature" is internal to God, therefore it's subjective. You say that God's moral goodness has reasoning behind it?  What is this reasoning?  Explain why I should accept his arbitrary nature as a standard of good?  You're just as bad as Neo, you talk about things being intrinsically good or bad, and having natures, without bothering to accept the vast weight of metaphysical baggage that comes along with such concepts.  Explain to me what it means for a person or being to be "intrinsically good" or how this supposed good nature of God communicates itself to the human intellect.  If you can't do that, all you've got is a bunch of handwaving.

I was not clear. When I said that God's moral goodness has reasoning behind it, I meant that it was structured and not arbitrary. God's moral nature would only be subjective if it was reasoned by God into existence. However, being that his nature is and always was the paradigm of goodness, morality was not the result of reasoning. 

God communicated moral truths to the Jews in the OT and then more perfectly in Christ. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was (a trick), he answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:39ff). 

Further, God illustrated perfect love toward us by providing a path to redemption. The concepts of human love, redemption, self-sacrifice, nurture, etc. are illustrations (albeit imperfect) of a morality based in the nature of God.