Proving God Existence

[Tex]

It isn't very clear to me how his nature is altogether different from his commands. Is it not true that he commanded something to be moral because of his nature? If so, then the Euthyphro Dilemma rears its ugly head into the picture. Basically, what I think the problem is here is that "what" God actually is doesn't matter. It is the transmission -- the command to humanity -- that is in question. How God came to the conclusion that that particular thing was moral is irrelevant; whether an arbitrary choice or from his nature, doesn't matter. What matters is that when that moral code gets transmitted to us as a command, we have to ask ourselves the Euthyphro Dilemma. Unless you believe in the Deistic god like myself... then morality is a non-issue.

First, I don't think that transmission has anything to do with the Euthyphro (although it should lead to the question). However, if its the transmission means that you don't like, I can take a stab at it.

Christianity doesn't really work on a system where God has issued all commands that we are to do (unless your amish). I can drive a car and not be culpable for sin. If I drive recklessly, it's not even a sin (its fun to drive recklessly sometimes, such as going mudding or something). However, if I am driving recklessly and I kill someone, now I have sinned. This is never commanded. Murder is against the law, but I haven't actually murdered, I committed manslaughter. There aren't any cars in the bible, so I must be fine? The only verse that comes close talks about bulls.

Exodus 21:29
But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

So obviously, God doesn't care about manslaughter as long as it's not with an ox. Right? Nope. I still say that the manslaughter is sinful, but it hasn't been commanded. This is because the transmission isn't always in the form of a command. The only religious analogy I can give would be with the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:26-29
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Since we eat Christ's body and blood, we absorb into God, not in the sense of Nirvana or something, but that we because "Godly" by derivative of God. When we "do the Good", metaphysically we aren't just helping the needy, but we are growing closer to God. This transmission issue I think God sees as well. It's not just a going-though-the-motions type of deal, but it is supposed to correspond with own own desires.

Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

I don't know if this will help, especially because I've never seen that objection within the debate of the Euthyphro dilemma. First time for everything right? Anyway, since this is the first time, criticize it plenty. I need to see if it actually means anything or if it's just my mind's ramblings.