Euthyphro's Dilemma

Round of his main argument Atheistic Moral Platonism The Fool: One thing the reader should recognize right away, is that Pro doesn't bother to give an actual representative argument of the position which he claims to be refuting. For even the expression Atheistic Moral Platonism is itself excessive and unnecessary. Despite the key arguments of this debate being mentioned within one of Plato's Works, it is one of his first works, and is before Plato's development of his Theory of the Forms. Moreover, it is considered a Socratic1 Dialogue, that is an argument from Socrates and not necessarily platonic. Another thing to consider is that it is not atheistic argument itself, but an argument against divine command theory. The difference is that, Socrates is not arguing of whether or not there exists God'(s), but rather how people claim to derive morals by referring to the gods. Thus, the expression "Atheistic Moral Platonism" is a superfluous Red herrings which attempt to pull the reader's attention away from the actual argument, which I have outlined in round one already. On the Forms Audience: What Are the Forms? The Fool: The forms are essences of things we recognize within other things but never by themselves. Things like good, and beautiful, justice, and numbers. The argument for the forms is not simply that they "just exist", but rather since we can recognize these aspects within Nature2, they must be things which exist of their own accord outside the domain of the five common senses. Reformulation P1. The mind/soul4 is the observer. P2. What is observed, exist in some way. P3. We recognize things like Grace, Morals, mathematics and reason. P4. But it is not with the five senses that we recognize them. C1 Therefore they must be objects which exist in a domain graspable by the mind/Soul. So in modern terms, The Forms are "objects" graspable by consciousness, other than the five senses. And it is in this sense in which they can be considered "objective." They "just exist" The Fool: Pro has claimed that saying something just exists, is not a justification and I completely agree. Argument from definition Pro himself, argues for morals and God by virtue of his definition. But this is completely trivial, because nothing follows by definition other than a definition. For example, I can define a "unicorn" as being a super ultra-deluxe moral, good and great super being. But it does not follow by a definition that there in fact exists a corresponding entity to which these terms refer to. And it would be quite absurd to then derive truth other than the fact that something has been said, or stated just because I defined a term as such. If there is a God, we can never define God by terms alone because that would mean that the definitions themselves are what determine God. For example we may literally define a statue out of clay, By physically altering the shape of clay. But it's absurd to think that we can define the statue, by describing one we would like to exist "in terms", alone. What actually gets defined in this way at best is our Idea, which the term refers to. For we all know what unicorns are, by virtue of our "idea" of one. But that is not the sense in which we mean when we say commonly that a unicorn exist. Nor does a unicorn come into existence because we define it to be existing. For something exist because it is A Thing not because it has a property which is existence. She said he said therefore true?? The Fool: Pro has used a few references in his round, but they are not arguments or support for his claims but references of things being said. But nothing follows by virtue of saying something other than the fact that something was said, or perhaps thought. Since pros argument depend upon these fallacies, nothing significantly true can be derived from them. The Fool: I will continue to explicate my arguments from round one in the third round. Vote Fool.