No, there is no circular argument there. The second sentence makes that certain.

It doesn't address the dilemma because it renders it void. This is not complicated. It is the same logic that makes a king's command of a knight just, but a peasant trying to do the same injust. Indeed you can even have a system where you can't question the king's command within the confines of the system that affirms him, because it would be treason.

And sure, you can question the ethical and legal standards of a monarchy just fine - but they do not raise a paradox inside the ethical and judicial confines of the monarchy.

The conclusion of course (in my view) is that arbitrary logic alone is a bad foundation for morals, it should be vested in reason. But that's another debate entirely.

OK, but the moral arbitrariness of command systems IS part of the dilemma - the part the OP seems most concerned with. You're just describing the system, not voiding the dilemma.

Sure, but the minute you assert that you can successfully question the foundation of morals (like the dilemma does), you have already abandoned divine command theory.

The dilemma, in effect, rests on an implied assumption that divine command theory is wrong. It proves itself, not that divine command theory is inherently illogical.

This, which might have been unclear in my eagerness to debate, is a pretty hefty criticism of divine command theory. It is essentially impervious to criticism, which might sound good on paper - but in reality it's a bit like debating politics with your racist uncle.

Essentially you're (in a roundabout manner) saying "I'm right therefore I am right".

The dilemma is that Christians have to accept that god's moral judgments are arbitrary, or referenced to a source external to god. Both options present problems for Christians, they don't want to accept either.

No one is saying that Command theory is wrong, and no assumptions are being made. It simply isn't internally consistent, unless you bring in this characteristic of god, that he is 'good by nature' and so his moral judgments are not arbitrary, and the second horn of the dilemma just becomes moot. It's that new element that I'm trying to examine, because I think it makes an assumption that Good is better than Bad.

These statements don't mesh together at all. It's like you're trying to redefine Divine Command Theory to be something other than what it is, and then combine it with an alternative meta-ethical theory in order to create the contradiction.

I think it's more about questioning semantics than logic. DCT appears to be something other than how humans including Christians instinctively think of and define morality. So yes in that sense the dilemma assumes DCT is wrong.

What is logically inconsistent is WLC etc. trying to have it both ways. The arguments used try to avoid the first horn by just obfuscating circular references to an external standard in flowery language.

Speaking of morality as coming from a 'source external to god' is, potentially, over-stating the case. It's pretty reasonable to think that god got some properties 'for free' when creating the universe. For example, if god created the atmosphere of the Earth, plus set it in motion around the sun and whatnot, he got 'windiness' for free. He didn't need to add that property to the universe, over and above creating those things that allow for the conditions that entail it to exist. It could be a similar case with morality; perhaps what is morally good is that which minimises suffering, and so god does not get to set what is good by fiat. But, on this view, neither is moral goodness something prior to god, in any interesting way.

Now, some Christians don't want to think of morality as something that reduces to natural facts, but that doesn't mean all of them reject such view. Anecdotally, the fact that Christians will sometimes say "God has blessed you" and sometimes say "God is testing you" is a fairly reasonable indicator that they do, at least to some extent, see good and bad as things that are grounded in something other "what god does/commands" and "what god doesn't do/commands".

Questioning whether "good is better than bad" is massively letting Christians off the hook. You'll be instantly dismissed as a stereotypical moral relativist atheist.

This.

This is false; Divine Command theory comes in various flavors, and one can easily posit moral relativism based on circumstance as "God's command". The "divine" in DCT is not necessarily tied to specific revelation. Try not to make such silly absolute statements.

Also false; again, if one posits that "divine command" is to practice moral relativism based on circumstance, there is no assumption that DCT is wrong. Of course, if you're speaking of a particular variant of DCT, then maybe your argument holds water.

This retort is borderline nonsensical. DCT, most generally, posits that an action is ethical (i.e., justifiable relative to a principle, rule, etc.) if it is commanded by God. In that case, the "rule" would be God's command. Mightyboosh is referencing the implicit assumption that God is "good", given that ethics, roughly, is the study of determining right and wrong. If God is not implicitly "good", then DCT presents a problem relative to general ethics because then what is "ethical" would be determined by something that is "not good". From here, it is a simple logical jump in discerning that Mightyboosh equates "good" with "right", i.e., not "wrong", to understand the "inconsistency" he is referring to.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with Mightyboosh (actually, I probably do not), but his argument here makes sense on its own terms. So your "doesn't mesh together at all" is simply incorrect. Improve.

In DCT, the only one who can posit that is God, not humans. You're running in circles and your repeated insults are becoming old.

Zip up the the e-peen if you want to debate, it isn't impressing anyone.

I welcome an elaboration of an accepted form of "Divine Command Theory" in which God's commands are "wrong" in some sense. To reach that conclusion (the "wrong in some sense"-ness) requires an alternate meta-ethical theory.

Again with deflection. I'm curious- is this your go-to every time you realize that you're defending a losing position, i.e., just vomit the "I welcome" mantra and shift topics? Nice. I elaborated Mightyboosh's polemic and explained why your retort to him was invalid. No "alternate meta-ethical theory" is required because it is implicit within DCT that God is a force of good, and if this is questioned, then DCT presents a problem relative to general ethics. Not sure what more elaboration you need.

This is false. If we begin with the premise that conceptions of 'God' rest in, and are products of, the human mind, such a restriction is nonsensical. It is essentially attempting an end-run around the discussion, which makes your "running in circles" quip that much more humorous.

Also, given the insanity displayed by your ego following your loss in several other arguments with me (most notably a direct denial of the plain definitions of words), I would recommend against projecting your insecurities onto your interlocutor (it doesn't help your position in the slightest).

As far as debating goes, we're just getting warmed up here .

I'm not the one trying to impress with a bachelor's degree, calling people names and talking about "winning" in every 3rd post, but whatever.

According to you DCT proposes a god of relative morals that has give humans the power to deduce those morals, and whatever relative morals humans deduce to be good is good and therefore they are good. You have also supported MB's proposition that "bad" can be better than "good".

If God is such a moral nihilist, I don't think the Euthyphro dilemma is very interesting.

Bachelor's degree? Where did I mention that? I think you're referring to my mention of a philosophy minor, which was a joke since everyone knows that a philosophy minor is BS. But...thanks for proving my point?

Also, when you purposefully misinterpret your opponent's polemic, and then deny direct sources that prove his position, you should probably not be talking about penis size, k? Atta boy.

This is false. Nowhere did I say that DCT necessarily proposes such a god; I gave one possible interpretation following Mightyboosh's post, and now you're (again) attempting to pervert my position. Not too cool.

As far as "bad" being better than "good", I guess you've never heard of moral relativism then? Ok.

There's that spin again. Never said that God is "moral nihilist", but you don't know, and I don't know, therefore making arguments based on assumptions that he definitely is or is not is foolhardy. The argument here is one variant of DCT, given the ambiguity present, and an explanation as to why discounting such a variant (as Aaraon W. did previously) is untenable. Simple, right?

I think we all know what it means when you say this.

I don't know what you think you mean by "general ethics" when you're talking about something that exists within a specific meta-ethical theory.

Indeed. Thanks for proving my point. Totally worth its weight in gold.

Ok, my apologies.

You seem to be proposing a God who makes morals, but they can be different. But sometimes some things are good, and therefore they are good. Unless bad is better than good, then good is bad... which can presumably also be better than good, which is now bad.

Then again we don't know if humans can even deduce those morals, so it's all bad. I think.

No worries.

I'm discussing a variant of DCT based on absolute moral relativism, which generally has no hard and fast abstract standards, pursuant to what Mightyboosh brought up.

That's an entirely separate question altogether. The issue here is about the principles underlying DCT.

Lol...you don't get it: the ability to humiliate egomaniacs online makes it worth that and more. Thank you again for proving my point.

And now we have projection. Nice.

This has already been defined for you in this context:

Also, there is no "meta-ethical theory" in play here; the only thing being discussed is a variant of DCT.

If only God commands what is good, then good isn't relative but absolute. If he commands that good should be relative, he no longer commands what is good and DCT doesn't play.

And that's the problem you get when you fuse together antonyms by stuffing "moral" in the middle.

Nonsense. God, posited as an omnipotent being, can command relativity all day long. In such case, the applicable DCT variant would be moral relativism.

What problem? You're attempting to limit the abilities of a hypothetical force that is often posited as omnipotent. Do I have to define what "moral relativism" means for you? I'm seriously getting tired of doing your research for you, especially when you deny plain English (e.g., 'polemic' = 'an argument', sourced from 3 reputable dictionaries).

No, I'm not trying to limit God, I'm simply questioning how you stick words together. "Absolute moral relativism" is... quite interesting.

I'm sure any research you do will provide exactly the results you want.