The Euthyphro Dilemma
The classic dilemma:
Either:
(1) God's will determines goodness.
Or:
(2) Goodness determines God's will.
On (1), moral goodness is too arbitrary. If God commanded murder, on this picture, murder would be right. Further, God's "benevolence" is entirely superficial: He'd be just as praiseworthily good for doing the exact reverse of what he does.
On (2), God's power is diminished. He is not the author of the universe. He's a mere paperboy for moral reality.
I tend to think that the dilemma is fatal for some forms of supernaturalism. However, one can still believe in some gods if you accept (2). It rules out all-powerful or all-creating gods, but other gods may not fit these criteria.
One entertaining suggestion I gleaned from one of my students this semester is that (1) is true, but that this is not inexplicable. They suggested that God may have created many universes, each with some arbitrary set of moral laws. The reason that the human race still lives in ours is because we happen to be in a universe in which God happened to command reasonably sensible moral laws for us.
This seems analogous to the standard response to the fine-tuning argument: Our moral/physical laws are sensible, because if they were not, we would not be here to debate them. So God had no reason for commanding as he did, but the fact that we live in a universe with sensible moral laws is not inexplicable.
Euthyphro
I'm not sure that gets at the crux of it. Take a look here for more details:
http://duelingwithatheism.blogspot.com
This comes across a little
This comes across a little like spam, but I'll respond anyway.
I see two links on that page, one that essentially claims that the Euthyphro is solved if you consider moral goodness to be grounded in God's character, the second essentially makes a historical argument about Plato's intentions in writing the dialogue.
Since my interest is not historical, I'll ignore the second. What about the first?
Well, could you explain why we can't just re-run the dilemma? Is God's character a good one to have because it is independently good, or is his character good because it happens to be God's?
Here's a different way to make the point, perhaps more forceful. You say you don't like it being phrased as a dilemma, so I'll run it as a reductio ad absurdum instead:
1) God created everything.
2) God is all powerful.
3) God created morality. (from (1))
4) God could have created morality however he liked. (from (2) and (3))
5) Torturing babies for fun could have been morally right. (from (4))
But (5) is absurd, so either (1) or (2) (or both) must be false.
Al
Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma
Hello. I just thought you might like to read this article: "A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma" http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
The Hunting of the Snark?
Well, it's rather long so I admit I skipped a few bits but I read the conclusion and most of the comments. What's really interesting is the incredible arrogance of the guy who really believes he has solved a problem which has exercised the finest minds in Christendom for centuries. Non-Americans can only dream of such self-confidence. Sadly, I don't think he will be inundated with congratulatory e-mails from the great and the good of the philosophical world. His defence will inevitably be known as the Snark defence since it relies heavily on the idea that what is said three times is true as advanced by Lewis Carroll.
He points out that consistency is a necessary condition for truth without realising that it is not a sufficient condition. He doesn't in fact, move the argument anywhere and I don't think all Christians would be happy with the conception of the Trinity as he uses it.
That said, his argument is a success. He says he wants to reassure Christians rather than convince non-believers and he probably will, where the word 'Christian' is understood, as usual, to mean 'person who'll believe just about anything.'