Euthyphro dilemma

[Angrboda]

No, Steve, it's not "obvious" that this is so, because it's not true at all.  In the sense of being an objective fact, it is simply not true that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection.  The universe as a whole could care less whether you are morally perfect or not.  The universe is indifferent to questions of moral perfection.  To it, the one is just as good as the other.  If the universe doesn't care one way or the other, then it is not an objective fact.  You have utterly failed to provide any so-called great-making property, because there are none.  Perhaps in the eyes of a thinking being, one property is "better" than another.  But in the eyes of the universe, one is just as good as another.

Morality only applies to thinking/reasoning/conscious beings--which just so happens to be the only subject of the last 18 pages.

This is a lie. A subtopic of the last few pages has been whether the concept of a greatest conceivable being is coherent. That you want to ignore that now and divert the discussion aside from that issue can only be seen as a pathetic attempt to evade the truth.

We are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It has no relevance whatsoever and invoking it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid, not address the issue.

This is another lie. The question which you yourself raised was whether moral perfection was objectively better than moral imperfection. As such, my complaint that it makes no difference to the universe is exactly on point. It is you, not I, who is evading addressing the issue.

Our moral reasoning and intuitions scream out that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. Absent a defeater, it is the only reasonable position to hold.

Bollocks, this does not in any sense demonstrate that your claim is objectively true. In fact you make a strong prima facie case that it is nothing but a subjective position. And although I don't cotton to your stupid Toulminesque epistemological pretensions, I did in fact provide the defeater in pointing out that it makes no difference to the universe whether you are morally perfect or not. Therefore it is not an objective fact that moral perfection is 'better' than moral imperfection.

As such, the concept that God is the paradigm of moral perfection (GCB Theology) is coherent and as shown, avoids the dilemma by providing a third alternative (or if you wish, a rewording of the original horn #2 so it is no longer objectionable).

Whether or not God is coherent as a morally perfect being, or even whether he avoids the dilemma, were not the issue at point. That you're now trying to turn the discussion back to other matters is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid capitulation on the issue. The concept of a 'greatest conceivable being' is incoherent, as I have shown, and your claim that moral perfection is objectively better than moral imperfection has been shown to be without any merit whatsoever. Your attempt to defuse the disproof of your claim with lies and misdirection is noted.