Euthyphro dilemma

[SteveII]

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.

It used to be nicer to have a conversation with you. Your new over-the-top style is unbecoming. It's like you're playing to an audience. 

Yes, we have been discussing GCB theology, specifically God as the paradigm of goodness, and whether it is better to be morally perfect or not. I was not aware that we had left the OP subject behind. 

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.

Okay, from a moral nihilistic worldview, you are right. Congrats, morality is subjective and has no ultimate meaning.  However if God exists, at least some sort of morality outside ourselves and outside the universe exists. Invoking a Godless universe when arguing about whether God's moral perfection is better than moral imperfection makes no sense whatsoever.  

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.

Tell me why you are not just begging the question: There is no objective morality in the universe therefore God is not a source of objective morality. 

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.

No, you have not shown the concept of the GCB to be incoherent. You asserted that GCB Theology is all about having "good" qualities. You are conflating the moral word "good" with the non-moral meaning "better than" and then hiding behind the question how do we know what "goodness" is. It is better to be morally perfect than morally imperfect. That is not a difficult concept. We actually don't even need to know what morally perfect fully entails to know that one is better than the other.