Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

That was an interesting argument. I don't see though why it follows that god cannot exist along with objective moral values. It at most shows that objective values could possibly (if there are any) exist whether or not God exists.

Yes, that was a bit of a reach, but the argument still stands.

Most theists I know to avoid the euthyphro dilemma don't think that God "defines" morality. If I remember correctly they say morality exists as reflection of God's character or nature. In way, you might say, God is morality, just like they say God is truth, and God is logic, etc (rather than God having to create these things). Craig summarizes this response as "God's nature is the Good, and God's will necessarily expresses His nature" (p. 145). I'm not sure if you're argument addresses this specific view of God.

Yeah, this escape clause doesn't work. Theists use this switcharoo, like they use many others, to avoid properly defining what god means to avoid the concept being disproven. Formally, its known as "moving the goalposts".

If god actually did create everything, if he created himself then his nature and his character are dependent upon his consciousness as well. Thus, the reflection of his nature and character, i.e. morality, is subjective. If he didn't create himself and he did not determine his own nature, then he is not god. My argument addresses this view as well. You just have to go one step further.

I don't know of any theists who believe God "created himself." They think he exists necessarily or eternally. And I'm not sure why you think God not "creating himself" entails that he isn't God.

Though I think one of the biggest points against God is much of his nature as defined does seem arbitrary.

A similar problem for theists who hold to objective values is that they don't seem to be decided as to what exactly those values are. It reminds me of the problem creationists face when trying to define "kinds."