Arguments Against a God

[Phillysoul11]

I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents;

I don't think that you do, given that you completely failed to address it. The argument is simply: is something moral because god says so, or does god say it because it is moral? If the former, then morality is arbitrary, and if the latter, god is superfluous.

There is no third option. It is logically impossible that god be the standard of absolute morality, as if morality is merely based on what a god thinks, and nothing objective, then it is arbitrary, and anything at all could be moral or immoral solely based on its dictates. Genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, homophobia, xenophobia, and all of those nice things that appear in the bible would then be moral, solely because god says so. This is an evil and tyrannical king, not an absolute moral standard.  [/quote]

forgive me for the intrusion, but I seem to be hung on your comment. It seems to me as though Euthyphro's dilemma is merely a dilemma for the Polytheist. By attacking a theists view of god you must meet the theist where he stands. Most theists view god as the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to be the paradigm or standard of morality than to conform to it. Which entails the theistic god ( if existing) to be necessarily morally perfect. god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him, which is why most theists think that god can serve as the foundation of necessary moral truths, i.e., moral truths which hold in every possible world. (by saying that a property is essential to god I am saying that there is no possible world in which the theistic god could have existed and lacked that property ect.)
most theists I know think that morality/immorality is determined by conformity or lack thereof to his nature, (which is essential to His being.) making the dilemma false.

Yes, they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

I could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

[SSY]

Philly, you say a theistic god has to be morally perfect, but how would one judge this perfection? If the standards it is judged against are external to it, then the god's say in moral matters is redundant, if the standard used to judge the god is internal to it, then the perfection becomes meaningless, as the god's perfect morals just mean it it is consistant in it's own, arbitrary moral standards.

How can you say a being is morally perfect without having some standard to judge it with? Saying "this is the perfect chair" means it either confroms to all the tenents of chairness, or that it is the standards of chairness and all other chairs should aspire to be like this chair. In the first instance the standard is external to it, and in the second, the standard is arbtirarily based on one, random, chair.

[Hitsumei]

forgive me for the intrusion, but I seem to be hung on your comment. It seems to me as though Euthyphro's dilemma is merely a dilemma for the Polytheist.

What part of the argument as I presented it presupposes polytheism?

By attacking a theists view of god you must meet the theist where he stands.

I wasn't attacking a view of god, I was criticizing a view of morality.

Most theists view god as the greatest conceivable being.

Which is a subjective value judgment, like the greatest possible meal, or the greatest possible vacation spot. It is my opinion that the greatest possible entity should have bunny-ears, ergo, god has bunny-ears.

It is greater to be the paradigm or standard of morality than to conform to it.

Opinion, though irrelevant. The dilemma does not attempt to disprove god, or show that it cannot be the standard, it just reveals that it is not logically possible for god to both be the standard of morality, and for morality to be non-arbitrary.

Which entails the theistic god ( if existing) to be necessarily morally perfect...

By what standard? If god is the moral standard, then god is morally perfect by definition. If I were the moral standard, then I would be morally perfect by definition. That isn't saying much.

...god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality...

Non sequitur, this in no way follows from anything that you've said.

...god’s moral character would be essential to him, which is why most theists think that god can serve as the foundation of necessary moral truths, i.e., moral truths which hold in every possible world (by saying that a property is essential to god I am saying that there is no possible world in which the theistic god could have existed and lacked that property ect.)

My moral character is essential to me. If I existed with a different character in any other possible world, then I would not be "me", I would be a different persona. Though I can't serve as an absolute moral standard, and I don't see you even remotely addressing how any agent could without rendering morality arbitrary.

Instead of actually addressing the dilemma, you have merely trailed off into non sequiturs and red herrings.

...most theists I know think that morality/immorality is determined by conformity or lack thereof to his nature, (which is essential to His being.) making the dilemma false.

Appeal to the people fallacy. It matters not how many people think that a square-triangle is a possible entity, it doesn't then magically render the concept logically possible.

I could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

No it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

It is however derived from theology, but "theology" is the study of (a) god(s), and is not limited to theism. The words probably have etymological relation, but that is not relevant to their current meanings, and etymology often isn't.

[VanReal]

Whenever someone asks me to disprove their god(s), I just ask them to disprove unicorns or leprechauns and echo what they say back at them  

[Phillysoul11]

What part of the argument as I presented it presupposes polytheism?

Nowhere does it "presuppose" polytheism, from what I can tell it only seems a problem for a polytheist. Most polytheists have no being that is necessarily morally perfect.

Which is a subjective value judgment, like the greatest possible meal, or the greatest possible vacation spot. It is my opinion that the greatest possible entity should have bunny-ears, ergo, god has bunny-ears.

I don't think you got what I was trying to communicate (probably my mistake) I'll give it another go.
If you are attacking a view of morality (a theistic view) you must show why that view is incompatible/inconsistent with a view of (for this example) a theistic god which is what the ED tries to do, or what it most widely used for anyways. If you were to attack a god which has bunny ears you would be attacking a straw man as most theists don't believe god to have bunny ears.

I did not commit the people fallacy, I was attempting to communicate that if most theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being,then that is the being you must show to be logically incompatible with objective morality.

Opinion, though irrelevant. The dilemma does not attempt to disprove god, or show that it cannot be the standard, it just reveals that it is not logically possible for god to both be the standard of morality, and for morality to be non-arbitrary.

I don't recall saying it tries to disprove god. Please let me know what you are referring to.

By what standard? If god is the moral standard, then god is morally perfect by definition. If I were the moral standard, then I would be morally perfect by definition. That isn't saying much.

your right, if you were the moral standard you would be morally perfect; however, you do not by necessity have to be morally perfect (get where im going?) If the theistic god existed, he would be by necessity be morally perfect, because he would necessarily be the moral standard.

Non sequitur, this in no way follows from anything that you've said.

I was attempting to show how the two horns of the dilemma could be split, giving a third option by using the argument which I listed.

My moral character is essential to me. If I existed with a different character in any other possible world, then I would not be "me", I would be a different persona. Though I can't serve as an absolute moral standard, and I don't see you even remotely addressing how any agent could without rendering morality arbitrary.

correct, your moral character isn't perfect though, theists think that gods character is which is why any semi intelligent one sees no problem in the dilemma.

I could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

No it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

It is however derived from theology, but "theology" is the study of (a) god(s), and is not limited to theism. The words probably have etymological relation, but that is not relevant to their current meanings, and etymology often isn't.[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong but Theism is merely the belief in one or more gods. Deism is the belief in an impersonal god who has no interaction with the world ect. Theism never specifies which god exists or what that god is like, just that a god exists.

taken from the theism wiki page you gave me
"While a specific definition of theism may exclude deism, it is included by the most general definition."

Philly, you say a theistic god has to be morally perfect, but how would one judge this perfection? If the standards it is judged against are external to it, then the god's say in moral matters is redundant, if the standard used to judge the god is internal to it, then the perfection becomes meaningless, as the god's perfect morals just mean it it is consistant in it's own, arbitrary moral standards.

How can you say a being is morally perfect without having some standard to judge it with? Saying "this is the perfect chair" means it either confroms to all the tenents of chairness, or that it is the standards of chairness and all other chairs should aspire to be like this chair. In the first instance the standard is external to it, and in the second, the standard is arbtirarily based on one, random, chair.

It cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

sorry for the spelling errors, I'm a bit rushed but I'll try to go into more detail a little later.

[Hitsumei]

I don't think you got what I was trying to communicate (probably my mistake) I'll give it another go.
If you are attacking a view of morality (a theistic view) you must show why that view is incompatible/inconsistent with a view of (for this example) a theistic god which is what the ED tries to do, or what it most widely used for anyways. If you were to attack a god which has bunny ears you would be attacking a straw man as most theists don't believe god to have bunny ears.

You clearly completely misunderstood my objection. That was a reductio ad absurdum, to show the ridiculousness of the line of reasoning you were employing.

I did not commit the people fallacy, I was attempting to communicate that if most theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being,then that is the being you must show to be logically incompatible with objective morality.

The concept is nonsensical for the aforementioned reasons, but I don't have to do any such thing, the ED demonstrates that no agent can be an absolute moral standard, and a agent cannot be an objective moral standard by definition, "objective" (in the relevant sense) means that it is true regardless of what any agent thinks or feels. God is a subject, which necessarily makes morality subjective if a subject is the source, by definition.

I don't recall saying it tries to disprove god. Please let me know what you are referring to.

You were attempting to formulate an argument by asserting that god must be the source of morality, and not adhere to it because that would be greater. I was telling you that that is irrelevant, as god could be the source of morality, but then it is arbitrary. Then I explained why it is irrelevant, as the only reason you could reasonably state what you did was either because you thought I was say there is no god, or that it can't be the standard of morality, when I was not. Otherwise stating what you did would be entirely pointless.

your right, if you were the moral standard you would be morally perfect; however, you do not by necessity have to be morally perfect (get where im going?) If the theistic god existed, he would be by necessity be morally perfect, because he would necessarily be the moral standard.

This is circular, god is morally perfect because god is the moral standard, and god is the moral standard because god is morally perfect. I certainly don't see where you are going with this, and I must ask if you are going to continue to completely avoid the issue and not address the dilemma?

I was attempting to show how the two horns of the dilemma could be split, giving a third option by using the argument which I listed.

Regardless, you failed. I honestly find it a little comical that you think you can dissolve this dilemma that predates Christianity, when no theologian or philosopher to date has.

correct, your moral character isn't perfect though, theists think that gods character is which is why any semi intelligent one sees no problem in the dilemma.

Clearly you just don't grasp the dilemma, or you don't consider the last two and a half millennium worth of philosophers and intellectuals "semi-intelligent". You do not seem to understand that it means nothing to say that god is morally perfect if god is the moral standard. Whatever god does is morally perfect, no matter what it does, and what it says to do.

Also, hardly every theist agrees with objective morality, or divine command theory. Which is actually rendered a significantly minority view by your attempts to include polytheism and deism into the definition.

"While a specific definition of theism may exclude deism, it is included by the most general definition."

As I said, they are etymologically related, but if you read the first sentence of the wiki page it says "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a specific sense in current usage, theism generally refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe." and if you look to the post that you quoted, you will see that I specified "current usage".

Historically, and necessarily, it does not involve an interventionalist god, but in modern usage it does, and theism and deism are considered mutually exclusive in modern usage:  "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism )." -dictionary.com

In any case, this is a minor and irrelevant semantic quibble.

It cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

You don't seem to understand that you are just making incoherent assertions that you don't seem to think you even remotely have to explain, or argue for. They are just to be accepted because you, and theists that agree with you say so.

[SSY]

[
It cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

sorry for the spelling errors, I'm a bit rushed but I'll try to go into more detail a little later.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that god is perfect morally becuase he is god? Does god have some quality ( be definition of god ) that makes him morally perfect? By essential, do you mean that to be god, he has to be morally perfect?

If god cannot be judged, then how do you know he is morally perfect, other than saying "he is morally perfect bcuase he is god"?

[Phillysoul11]

Sorry for the delayed response, I have quite the busy schedule this semester.

 

You clearly completely misunderstood my objection. That was a reductio ad absurdum, to show the ridiculousness of the line of reasoning you were employing.

No, it was obvious what you were doing, I don't think you understood my objection to your objection.
for you to attack a theists view of morality you must attack HIS view. This seems blatantly obvious and horribly redundant. Let me lay out a classical theists position on morality for reference sake.
1. Believes in an omni god.
2. Believes that morality is objective.
3. Believes god to be the standard by which we tell right from wrong.

(note: not all theists believe this, especially if you include deists and polytheists :] )

from now on any of my references to a theist will be a theist according to the model.
Any theist who believes in an onmi god believes god to be the greatest conceivable being, for if there were greater, he would not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and so on.

Now, for the sake of clarity let me lay out my argument

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it

P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.

P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.

C: Therefore since His nature is perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths

All this has shown is that IF the theistic god exists (according to our model) he must be morally perfect.
The job of anyone posing the dilemma is to show why this isn't the case.
If you want to argue that not all theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being you would be right, but it would be irrelevant to the present discussion. The one posing the dilemma must accept P2 for the sake of discussion, otherwise he is arguing a strawman.

The concept is nonsensical for the aforementioned reasons, but I don't have to do any such thing, the ED demonstrates that no agent can be an absolute moral standard, and a agent cannot be an objective moral standard by definition, "objective" (in the relevant sense) means that it is true regardless of what any agent thinks or feels. God is a subject, which necessarily makes morality subjective if a subject is the source, by definition.

The ED attempts to demonstrate that no agent can be an absolute moral standard. I laid out an argument attempting to show why I think one can. The onus is on you to find one or more flaws in my argument.

You were attempting to formulate an argument by asserting that god must be the source of morality, and not adhere to it because that would be greater. I was telling you that that is irrelevant, as god could be the source of morality, but then it is arbitrary. Then I explained why it is irrelevant, as the only reason you could reasonably state what you did was either because you thought I was say there is no god, or that it can't be the standard of morality, when I was not. Otherwise stating what you did would be entirely pointless.

My whole point was to show how god could be a standard without the standard being arbitrary. Not only can he but according to the theist he must be.

god is morally perfect because god is the moral standard, and god is the moral standard because god is morally perfect. I certainly don't see where you are going with this, and I must ask if you are going to continue to completely avoid the issue and not address the dilemma?

You are right it is circular, my job is merely to offer an option where god can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

Regardless, you failed. I honestly find it a little comical that you think you can dissolve this dilemma that predates Christianity, when no theologian or philosopher to date has.

You my friend need to catch up with the times, most contemporary christian philosophers have similar arguments to the one I laid out. Whether or not they "dissolve" is for you to decide, but I have yet to see any adequate refutation.
In this short piece the Author simply argues that God's commands are not arbitrary, but metaphysically necessary.
http://tinyurl.com/ca3ep3
it's a good read if you get the chance.

Also, hardly every theist agrees with objective morality, or divine command theory. Which is actually rendered a significantly minority view by your attempts to include polytheism and deism into the definition.

Your right, I never said they all did. Notice the use of "most" in my posts. I was going by your definition of a theist to avoid confusion but as I can clearly see, that was a bad idea. Regardless of this, it shouldn't matter if it is only believed by one, or by a million.

You don't seem to understand that you are just making incoherent assertions that you don't seem to think you even remotely have to explain, or argue for. They are just to be accepted because you, and theists that agree with you say so.

I should hope that moral semantics be common knowledge for any "semi intelligent" being. If you don't understand something I'm happy to try and clarify but my claims are elementary.
My assertions are coherent, I would kindly ask you to avoid making rash statements. I do not think you are understanding my argument as all of your responses have been misrepresentations, please prove me wrong and correctly asses my argument.
Thanks.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that god is perfect morally becuase he is god? Does god have some quality ( be definition of god ) that makes him morally perfect? By essential, do you mean that to be god, he has to be morally perfect?

If god cannot be judged, then how do you know he is morally perfect, other than saying "he is morally perfect bcuase he is god"?

the title God is one which most Christians/Muslims ect. use to refer to the greatest conceivable being (see P2). if P1 is true than god must be morally perfect (or so my argument claims). God being morally perfect is essential in the sense that if he wasn't morally perfect, he wouldn't be the standard of morality, which means he would be under a different standard of morality, meaning there would be something greater than he which he would have to conform to. Its circular, but true (accepting my definition).

[McQ]

I hope no one is trying to "win" here, especially at the cost of civility and common humanity. Good people start by finding common ground, not by nitpicking and parsing every word. So to anyone, no names mentioned, who is having a hard time with that, please take a few deep breaths, first try to understand before trying to win an argument, and then post.

(remember...Happy Atheist Forum)

 

[Phillysoul11]

I hope no one is trying to "win" here, especially at the cost of civility and common humanity. Good people start by finding common ground, not by nitpicking and parsing every word. So to anyone, no names mentioned, who is having a hard time with that, please take a few deep breaths, first try to understand before trying to win an argument, and then post.

(remember...Happy Atheist Forum)

 

thanks McQ  
I apologize If I came off as nitpicky, or offended anyone.
I enjoy this sort of discussion, it can get heated but that's part of the fun! What would life be like without any drama?
If I wanted to convince others of my position I promise I would not be on an online forum

thanks again for the reminder.

[Hitsumei]

Now, for the sake of clarity let me lay out my argument

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it

Opinion. I certainly disagree, I would not want to be the moral standard, would you? I'd much rather employ reason and evidence, as opposed to whimsy.

P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.

This contradicts your previous statement that god cannot be judged. Now you are saying that god can be judged by you as the greatest conceivable being. Which is it? Though since theists are doing the judging, it renders god to be subservient to what they personally think is great. I gave my opinion about what was great, and it was dismissed for not being what theists think, so y'all must consider yourselves to be the objective standard, as you get to dictate to god what is and isn't great.

P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.

Tautology.

C: Therefore since His nature is perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths

Non sequitur. If I am the moral standard, I would be morally perfect, but it still doesn't follow that I could be the foundation for objective morality, because I am a subject, and morality would then be based on what I thought and felt, making it arbitrary, and subjective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents.

All this has shown is that IF the theistic god exists (according to our model) he must be morally perfect.
The job of anyone posing the dilemma is to show why this isn't the case.

The dilemma doesn't set out to show why god isn't the moral standard, isn't morally perfect, or doesn't exist. It demonstrates that if god is the moral standard, then morality is arbitrary and subjective.

My whole point was to show how god could be a standard without the standard being arbitrary. Not only can he but according to the theist he must be.

Well, you have manifestly failed to do that. Unless you think that asserting that that is what theists believe, and it just must be true is a demonstration.

You are right it is circular, my job is merely to offer an option where god can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

You can't offer such a thing unless you change the definition of "objective", and then your demonstration would be meaningless. If the source of morality is a subject, then it is logically impossible that it be objective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents. It is true regardless of what agents think and feel. For instance: methane is combustible is objectively true, it is true no matter what anything thinks or feelings, and would be true supposing no agents existed. Methane, and what it means to be combustible would have to change in order for this to not be true. If however it was true because of what an agent thought, then the state of affairs of the world would not need to change for the truth value of the statement to change -- that renders it subjective, and arbitrary.

You my friend need to catch up with the times, most contemporary christian philosophers have similar arguments to the one I laid out. Whether or not they "dissolve" is for you to decide, but I have yet to see any adequate refutation.

You have not laid out that argument. You have laid out a series of assertions, which you state just must be true because you believe they are. They don't even follow to your conclusion if they were true. Even I could give you a syllogism that would be logically valid to show that god is the objective moral standard, it is trivial to formulate an argument that is at least logically valid. I can prove anything like that.

1)Objectivity: true regardless of what any human thinks or feels
2)Morality: the source of objective moral truths
3)god: the source of objective reality
4)god is the source of objective moral truths.

I have to stipulate an ad hoc definition of objectivity, but at least my syllogism isn't a non sequitur. Though these types of arguments are useless if my premises are controversial, an argument must be both valid, and sound, the premises must be true. If my premises are controversial, then my argument is of no importance. You can prove anything if you don't have to demonstrate you premises, or get everyone to accept your stipulated terms.  

Regardless of this, it shouldn't matter if it is only believed by one, or by a million.

You're right, because who believes what is entirely irrelevant to its logical, or truth value.

I should hope that moral semantics be common knowledge for any "semi intelligent" being. If you don't understand something I'm happy to try and clarify but my claims are elementary.

Well excuse me for being so intellectually inferior to you that I require your points to be explained and argued for. I want all of your points explained and argued for, and I am not interested as to how obviously true you think that they are.

My assertions are coherent...

Argument by assertion certainly is easy. Anything is true if all that is required is that you say that it is.

I would kindly ask you to avoid making rash statements. I do not think you are understanding my argument as all of your responses have been misrepresentations, please prove me wrong and correctly asses my argument.
Thanks.

I have done so repeatedly. My criticisms are just brushed aside, and I am told that it is just true because you say so, and that is what theists believe. You have not tried to render them coherent, or intelligible. You have not explained how it can be so, you have just said that it is.

[adimagejim]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I must say the concept of a being (God if you will) that participated in the creation of the universe is just as easily won by theists in an Occam's Razor argument against all other viewpoints. So whether this is the first iteration of a physical universe or the billionth plus one, I don't find the God Creator notion any more or less believable. That is the first and only point I will cede to theists.

Beyond the notion of God the Creator: God the moral authority (pick your religion) or God the almighty or God the source of goodness is less credible than the wildest UFOlogy. In fact, it is important to note that most theists have less to go on by way of evidence than any UFO abductee story.

God the moral authority has so many widely differing codes of conduct as recorded by human religions it defies coherence. And if that God wanted a single moral code to be known, we'd have probably heard or seen by now in a much more obvious and continuous  way than a 40 day wait from the top of a mountain, etc.

God the source of all goodness, by definition must also be the source of all badness. So if you blame free will, he gave it. If you blame the devil, he made it. If you blame the tugging gravity of the cosmos, that's his too.

God the almighty is irrelevant. Having power without any intelligible moral code is without value and offers no insight into the affairs of the world or its inhabitants. In addition, if the almighty is a planner and intercessor, can anyone defend such sloppy management?

So theists, take heart, there may be or may have been a God. It just ain't the one we've been hearing about so far as we scramble around trying to explain the universe and relating it to our mortality.

Jim

[Phillysoul11]

Opinion. I certainly disagree, I would not want to be the moral standard, would you? I'd much rather employ reason and evidence, as opposed to whimsy.

Just because it may be undesirable does not mean it isn't true, If one must conform to an external set of rules that person is subjected to follow whatever rules he must conform to. Which is greater, one who is the rule or one who must follow the rule? A standard is greater as it is not forced to conform to anything. When you have to conform it is assumed that their is something greater that you must conform to. The greatest conceivable being wouldn't be greater than whatever it has to follow.

This contradicts your previous statement that god cannot be judged. Now you are saying that god can be judged by you as the greatest conceivable being. Which is it? Though since theists are doing the judging, it renders god to be subservient to what they personally think is great. I gave my opinion about what was great, and it was dismissed for not being what theists think, so y'all must consider yourselves to be the objective standard, as you get to dictate to god what is and isn't great.

god cannot be judged by an external standard of morality, if he could then he wouldn't (by the definition I began with) be god. Now if you want to argue definitions you are welcome to but as I mentioned before, the one posing the dilemma must accept for the sake of argument the theists definition. It matters not if others see greatness as something different than the theists, the one posing the dilemma is attacking the theists understanding of objective morality and as such must attack the theistic view of god's relation to morality.

Tautology.

I'm just trying to walk through the steps as slowly as possible.

Non sequitur. If I am the moral standard, I would be morally perfect, but it still doesn't follow that I could be the foundation for objective morality, because I am a subject, and morality would then be based on what I thought and felt, making it arbitrary, and subjective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents.

I don't think you are understanding what it means when I say that god by necessity must be morally perfect. God's moral nature is  necessarily perfect, that is to say if God (according to the theists definition) exists he must be morally perfect, if god must be morally perfect by virtue of his existence than why can't he serve as a standard for objective moral values?  If god must be the moral standard than morality would not be subjective to arbitrary decisions, rather gods nature, which is essential to his being.

Well, you have manifestly failed to do that. Unless you think that asserting that that is what theists believe, and it just must be true is a demonstration.

I'm not sure I follow, please clarify. If you are claiming that I am asserting whatever theists believe to be true must be true you are making a false accusation. If you meant something else then please let me know.

You can't offer such a thing unless you change the definition of "objective", and then your demonstration would be meaningless. If the source of morality is a subject, then it is logically impossible that it be objective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents. It is true regardless of what agents think and feel. For instance: methane is combustible is objectively true, it is true no matter what anything thinks or feelings, and would be true supposing no agents existed. Methane, and what it means to be combustible would have to change in order for this to not be true. If however it was true because of what an agent thought, then the state of affairs of the world would not need to change for the truth value of the statement to change -- that renders it subjective, and arbitrary.

Wikipedia: Objectivity (Philosophy) a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"â€"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

The dilemma correctly recognizes that if god's invented morality than he could have invented a different sort of morality. As the wise Bertrand Russell once said, "If the only basis for morality is God's decrees, it follows that they might just as well have been the opposite of what they are”.
My claim that god can serve as the foundation for objective moral truths is based upon the fact that since his being is by necessity morally perfect, things can be declared objectively right or wrong based upon their conformity or lack thereof to his perfect standard. gods moral standard didn't just happen to be the way it is, nor did he decide it to be the way it is, rather it is an essential quality of his.

You have not laid out that argument. You have laid out a series of assertions, which you state just must be true because you believe they are. They don't even follow to your conclusion if they were true. Even I could give you a syllogism that would be logically valid to show that god is the objective moral standard, it is trivial to formulate an argument that is at least logically valid. I can prove anything like that.

1)Objectivity: true regardless of what any human thinks or feels
2)Morality: the source of objective moral truths
3)god: the source of objective reality
4)god is the source of objective moral truths.

I have to stipulate an ad hoc definition of objectivity, but at least my syllogism isn't a non sequitur. Though these types of arguments are useless if my premises are controversial, an argument must be both valid, and sound, the premises must be true. If my premises are controversial, then my argument is of no importance. You can prove anything if you don't have to demonstrate you premises, or get everyone to accept your stipulated terms.

I have never claimed that anything must be true because I believe they are. Ever.
I don't see how my argument is a non sequitur, if god must be the morally perfect standard, than objective moral values have a base. Right and wrong can be determined based upon their conformity to his perfect nature

Well excuse me for being so intellectually inferior to you that I require your points to be explained and argued for. I want all of your points explained and argued for, and I am not interested as to how obviously true you think that they are.

I hope I have not given you an "elitist" impression, if I have I apologize, If you want me to clarify what I meant regarding moral semantics I am happy do so.
The argument is simply this: "If goodness is what god must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling god good is merely saying that god is consistent with his nature."
 Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and as the theist William Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” In addition most theists see no problem in accepting that goodness and morality are merely words used to describe god. Arguing semantics has its place and time, but as far as this discussion is concerned it is irrelevant, not that anyone was even going to argue this, I just had my suspicions  :]

I have done so repeatedly. My criticisms are just brushed aside, and I am told that it is just true because you say so, and that is what theists believe. You have not tried to render them coherent, or intelligible. You have not explained how it can be so, you have just said that it is.

I apologize if you don't understand my arguments, it probably is my fault and I will do my best to lay arguments out as simply and plainly as I can, with that being said these sorts of things take a lot of thinking to grasp. Just because one may not understand something, does not mean that something is false. Not an accusation, just a reminder...for myself as well as anyone else.

[Hitsumei]

I'm not sure I follow, please clarify. If you are claiming that I am asserting whatever theists believe to be true must be true you are making a false accusation. If you meant something else then please let me know.

This is precisely what you're doing. You have repeatedly taken the stance that the dilemma is some kind of straw-man because theists believe god is an objective moral standard, somehow not able to see that it is irrelevant what theists think, the dilemma shows that they are wrong. Just repeatedly saying that that is what theists think is not addressing the dilemma, nor does the dilemma misrepresent the theistic position, as it doesn't address a specific one, it addresses all forms, and shows how no agent can be the moral standard without morality being subjective and arbitrary.

All you have to do to dissolve the dilemma is to offer a third option, "things are good because god say so, or god says them because they are good". You need to give a third option by which a "goodness" analyzes is being made by god. By saying that god's nature is perfectly good, you have not offered how the analyzes was made that it was good, and when pressed you say that that is how theists have defined it, which by no means explains how god's nature has been established to be good, and by whom.
 
This is the major contention, which I need you to address, or this cannot go anywhere. If you cannot explain how it was determined that god's nature is good, then you have not offered a third option for how "what is good" is determined. If you cannot offer anything beyond tautology (i.e. "god is morally perfect because I and other theists who agree with me have defined it that way") then our conversation can go no where, and I would prefer that it ended it as opposed to wasted more of our time.

[Phillysoul11]

This is precisely what you're doing. You have repeatedly taken the stance that the dilemma is some kind of straw-man because theists believe god is an objective moral standard,  somehow not able to see that it is irrelevant what theists think, the dilemma shows that they are wrong. Just repeatedly saying that that is what theists think is not addressing the dilemma, nor does the dilemma misrepresent the theistic position, as it doesn't address a specific one, it addresses all forms, and shows how no agent can be the moral standard without morality being subjective and arbitrary.

Most theists believe god to be an objective moral standard but that is by no means the reason the dilemma does not apply. It is doesn't apply because most theists believe god to the the greatest conceivable being. Which as I have been arguing makes him necessarily morally perfect and thus able to be standard for objective morality. Simply believing god to be the standard for objective moral truths by no means dissolves the dilemma, i'm not sure where you got that idea from.

All you have to do to dissolve the dilemma is to offer a third option, "things are good because god say so, or god says them because they are good". You need to give a third option by which a "goodness" analyzes is being made by god. By saying that god's nature is perfectly good, you have not offered how the analyzes was made that it was good, and when pressed you say that that is how theists have defined it, which by no means explains how god's nature has been established to be good, and by whom.

The third option I offered was that morality is not based on arbitrary decrees, nor is it merely recognized by god, rather an action is considered moral or not based upon its conformity or lack therof to gods essential moral character. Remember I said that a property is considered essential to god if god could not have existed without that property. God didn't just happen to be morally, he is that way necessarily, by virtue of his very existence.

This is the major contention, which I need you to address, or this cannot go anywhere. If you cannot explain how it was determined that god's nature is good, then you have not offered a third option for how "what is good" is determined. If you cannot offer anything beyond tautology (i.e. "god is morally perfect because I and other theists who agree with me have defined it that way") then our conversation can go no where, and I would prefer that it ended it as opposed to wasted more of our time.

I hope that you don't feel obliged to continue discussion for my sake, I enjoy this kinda stuff but I realize that many don't.
In any case thanks for your responses and the time you put into them.