You are confusing the Euthyphro dilemma and the Euthyphro dialogue here. The dialogue contained many arguments, including the one you noted above and ends in an unresolved elenchus about the nature of virtue. The Euthyphro dilemma is the name of a specific argument in the dialogue that has become famous as an argument against divine command theories of morality. The dilemma itself doesn't really have anything to do directly with moral relativism.

This isn't an argument against atheism any more than the Euthyphro Dilemma is an argument against theism.

You forgot about minor figures like Kant, Leibniz, and most of the liberal tradition in theology.

gimme a break

So you agree ED isn't anti-theism? Great.

I don't think of Kant as a theist. At any rate, I'm not sure he was a moral realist. I haven't read Leibniz.

...okay.

Yes, I definitely agree. Isn't that obvious? It's an argument against divine command theory--a view of morality that is rejected by many theistic philosophers.

Lemonzest - purely for the benefit of fixing a possible misrepresentation of my questions, I'd just add that:

This is, and always was, my position. Looking forward to continuing our discussion when the noise dies down.

Warm regards

so can a christian do whatever he wants - kill, rape, steal, etc - and its already taken care of by jesus dying for that person? or if he asks for forgiveness has he pretty much wiped the slate clean?

It isn't a good argument against WLC's definition of DCT.

why shouldn't he? shouldn't any christian be allowed to speak for christianity? doesn't the bible say to spread the good word?

I haven't looked closely enough at the arguments involved to know if I agree. I will say that I think Robert Adams is an excellent philosopher, and he is the one that developed the modified divine command theory you are referring to here.

"The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.

So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it."
- William Lane Craig

Moral VALUES = answer to the Euthyphro "attack", moral ontology.

Moral DUTIES = DCT, moral epistemology.

The Wes Morriston link you gave understands this.

@Zumby- you have a beautiful, rational, unbiased thought process... at least from what you've displayed in this thread. I always sift through so much trash in threads like these, however, reading your posts, and questions, have been a breath of fresh air.

I dont think it is right to pre suppose that God wont judge justly. I believe he will judge in a just way and take into account peoples background and experiences. If he is God then He will have sufficient knowledge and ability to discern.

"Its not fair one woman gets all my love" first off LOL. your awesome so funny...

I dont make the rules brah. thats just what Christianity teaches. I personally think it is good to commit to one girl and be faithful.

I see where FishNoob is coming from on this. The viewpoint is very jaded but I can relate.

I understand it. Hell, having watched every WLC debate going, I even read it in his accent. But I don't find it a compelling answer to the question because it just seems to be evasive. Pushing the issue back to "It is God's nature to be good" to separate his nature from his commands just lets us rephrase the question as ""Is God's nature good because it has good-making properties (love, mercy etc) or are good-making properties good because they reflect God's nature?"

Stick around long enough and you'll see I have my irrational moments, but thanks

HI Gskowal,
I am willing to engage you but seems like you already made your mind up about me. If there is something specific you want to discuss then lets do it!

I do have a few questions:

I heard Moses had some helpers sacrifice baby dying giraffes in Egypt's water system which is why everything turned blood red?

I heard Moses had a bunch of Jesuits hike up the nile delta with a bunch of bags and that they sand bagged a nile vein in order to cross and free the Jews. As soon as Pharaoh's soldiers attempted pursuit the water was reinstated and many were washed away (including some ex slaves). Moses got the idea from Asian warfare a tactic rooted in the roots of the art of war?

I heard that Jesus smoked weed all of the time is this true?

I also heard that Jesus use to drink a lot and he would walk around at night swearing at people and peeing on the streets. He would say "I'm son of God, worship me because I love you!". And one time he got so drunk he kissed a dude and when he woke up in the morning and sobered up he said he liked it?

Have you ever heard of Jesus twin brother Jonathon? He was supposedly used for the crucifixion/resurrection?

I also heard that Jesus was supposed to bring water on a long voyage but he brought wine instead because it wouldn't go bad as fast, and when asked how they would feed the animals he replied "I just turned water into wine". And then he drank heavily?

This will sound weird too but I heard Jesus hates Christians but is okay with Muslims?

Also I heard Jesus was essentially a Buddhist and spent most of his life in Tibet smoking weed and tilling his rock garden, he got too wasted one time so the monks kicked him out?

I didn't know what to say because I just felt like we fundamentally disagreed. If we dont' agree about humans being naturally bent toward evil I felt we were at an impasse. The biblical account of original sin creates a lens for which to see the world. The biblical account makes the world make sense in terms of why so many atrocities take place. The view you assert leaves me wondering if anything is evil at all. Your view does not provide sufficient context.

Many people do not acknowledge that Christianity is rooted in history. Many people do not acknowledge there is a factual beginning to Christianity. If you do acknowledge these things I think that is great. One reason I wanted to start this thread was to allow people who disagree with Christianity to be armed with correct information.
I am aware I can't prove any of the miracles in the bible. We both know that. I do want people to be aware the Christianity is not "as laughable as any other religion".
I do think that the number of original manuscripts lends credibility to the truth of those documents. But I understand where you are coming from that the number of documents does not equal truth on a 1:1 ratio.

I always thought the Iliad was supposed to be fiction? I guess not.

Why do you disparage Catholics?

Well then lets start from a more basic place, what causes you to think that the nature of man is sinful, what confirms to you that what the Bible says about mans nature is true? What external evidence do you observe that makes you think that man is MORE evil than good?

I am aware that man does evil, and that on occasion a man is far more evil than good, but in my experience man is by no means primarily an evil creature and a suggestion otherwise seems outrageous without some sort of evidence. What evidence do you observe that I do not?