The euthyphro dilemma.

[tackattack]

---

Theists, what is your response to this Dilemma? Do you chose to take one of the horns, or do you have a solution for getting around the dilemma?

For those who do not know, the euthyphro dilemma was proposed by Plato in one of his socratic dialogs, phrased in a modern and relevant way read as follows:

Is something good simply because God likes it OR is does God like it because it is good?

With this dilemma you have two apparent options:

1) Either something is good because God likes it and therefore morality being the commandments of God is subjective and arbitrary - If God liked rape or torture then rape or torture then rape and torture would be morally good.

2) Moral standards exist apart from God and therefore God is not the giver of morals. This posits the existence of "intrinsic values" as would require that God follows them.

Which option do you chose?

---

I am not farmiliar with the arguement and don't really have time to research it. I think I stopped at post 12, only for time constraints, but here's my opinion on the OP.

It is an uninformed dichotomy and given the options present I would choose 1. I believe 2 is also true. Morality, however as this is leading to is, is defined as subjective morality while we're trying to explain that God is an objective morality thus it's more along the lines of an equivocation fallacy. I don't get my subjective morals from God, but from myself. Then there are societal morals by which a society calls itself civilized. I do however model my morality towards the objective moraility of God rather to the shifting virtues of society.