(July 7, 2017 at 2:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 7, 2017 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: See bold.
You have just gutted the dilemma. The unwanted conclusion of the original dilemma was that God could change his mind and good could be redefined. The bold above simply points out in so many words that morality is based on God's nature. Natures don't change. No unwanted conclusion.
Regarding the arbitrary characterization, how much more objective could the nature of an eternal God be?
It being objective does not prevent it from being arbitrary. If it is based on the fact of God's nature being good, and that nature is considered good without respect toward anything beyond the mere fact of it being God's nature, then it could be anything and it would still be considered good. That robs it of any real moral significance.
I don't think you understand the dilemma, nor what it means for something to be arbitrary.
Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary? Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.
The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us.
With a third option, there is no dilemma.
Regarding moral significance, that is relative judgment. I think the eternal moral properties of an unchanging God is a good place to anchor your morality. Certainly more objective than any other system.