Euthyphro dilemma

[Angrboda]

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.  

The question is whether there is any objective basis for grounding qualitative assessments in order to be able to conceive of a being that is in some objective sense "the greatest." You've given me no objective reason why moral perfection is qualitatively better than moral imperfection, simply the ipse dixit arguments of "it's obvious" and "it's the only reasonable position to hold." The claim is that God is the greatest conceivable being. The greatest anything is not merely what one person or another desires or wants to be, it must be grounded in something that isn't wholly subjective. The only alternative is objective values. However, you claim these don't exist (without God).

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. 

Because that's neither the question at issue, nor my position on the matter. You keep confusing the two matters.

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.

No, Steve, the word good can be used in a moral sense or a qualitative sense. That you chose the one interpretation over the other is a folly of your own. Since these issues have been addressed in the other thread, and that thread is more tightly focused on the question at issue, I suggest we take it up there.