Euthyphro dilemma is still a sound argument against Devine command theory

If I could show that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of an all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient God, and the existence of evil and suffering in the world, then the argument against God from evil fails. But that does not in itself present any positive arguments in favor of God"s existence. Similarly, to show that the euthyphro dilemma is not a sound argument, I would have refuted Pro without having proved that God exists. This debate is not about if there is positive evidence for God"s existence, but rather, about whether the euthyphro dilemma is a sound, so I only need show his argument is not sound to win this debate, I don"t need to present evidence for God"s existence. If God"s nature is the source of moral values, I still don"t see how this is independent of God, for God"s nature cannot exist without God, just as human nature cannot exist without humans. So to try to split God and his nature into separate categories is simply splitting hairs needlessly to win an argument. One cannot list all of human nature without describing a human, just as one cannot speak of God"s nature independent of God. Pro claims that "if God cannot control his nature he thus is not the standard," but says who that to be the source of moral values God needs to be in control of them? When someone I love is in pain its natural for me to be sad. I cannot control feeling sad for them, its in my nature. Emotions come automatically to me. Does that fact that I cannot control the uprising of these emotions mean that I am not the source of these feelings? Are they not emanating from inside of me? So even if God doesn"t control his moral values this in no way proves he isn"t the source. I may invent a product but others may be in control of it besides me, does that mean I"m not the ultimate source of the product? I invented it! So being in control of something has nothing to do with being its source. Pro says "2. "God's character is the standard." (As we have concluded it is the logical idea/definition of Gods nature, which we have also concluded that is independent of God, Is thus the true standard of morality and morality is not based on the nature of God but what that nature means to be.) One can then by these two premises accurately conclude that God is thus not required for moral good. Only an understanding of what constitutes his nature is needed (since it's defined by the ultimate authority)." This again fails to show that God"s character can possibly exist apart from God, and thus, without God, there is no character, an no source for moral values. Remember that morality cannot exist outside conscious beings such as God, but the thing that makes God"s character and not our the standard for all others to meet is the fact that his character existed first, and existed eternally. Unlike human character, which in Pro"s view is an accidental product of socio-biological evolution, God"s character wouldn"t be subjective because it was not accidental. Balanced against eternal knowledge, or at the very least, more wisdom than any other being will ever have, it again stands to reason that God"s character would be a fitting standard of moral values. Pro also makes an assumption about my own personal beliefs that isn"t true. He says "My opponent assumes God is true because God tells him of his nature and that being he is eternal (through scripture)." This isn"t my position at all, nor did I appeal to Scripture in this debate and anyone reading this debate can see that. I know God is true, not because the Bible says so, for I knew God before I knew the Bible to be true. God revealed himself to me, I personally experienced him, and I see no reason to deny the experience of God that I perceived through my five senses anymore than I should deny the existence of the physical world. And while I know many skeptics will say to this, "but what about the many other people who experience a different version of God from you?" to that I simply say this shows there is more than one entity out there people are coming into contact with. This makes more sense of the religious experience than to say that the millions of extremely well-educated people, who have not been diagnosed with any mental illness, who have made significant contributions to science, government, their communities, and worked hard to make the world a better place, are somehow deluded, not being able to tell dream from reality, or that they are just liars who make up all this stuff for attention. My opponent seems to embrace nihilism in the end. He says "For anyone who picks up reading material on moral subjectivism will find that morality if defined subjectively (which it is considering no God linked moral law.) will learn that what is Good is indeed Good to he who defines Good as such." So Pro is simply repeating the idea that morality is subjective. It is only good to the person who defines good that way, so if a person defines rape as good, as Pro says, it "is indeed godd TO HE WHO defines" it that way. So goodness in Pro"s view is all in the eye of the beholder. And if it"s a human construct we invented and put into the world, we can change it at any time so that rape and murder becoming good as long as a society accepts it as such. Pro keeps using the terms "this CAN BE SEEN as" when dealing with morality, avoiding ever coming out and saying that rape for sure IS wrong, even if all of us humans one day accept it as good, we would still be wrong, and anyone of you who agrees with me should vote Con. Shame on me? No, Pro, I am calling a spade a spade. Either absolute, objective morality exists, or it doesn"t! If it doesn"t, you have no right to say "shame on you" as you did in your last round, because the only wrong I committed was in your flawed, subjective imagination, but TO ME what I said was right. Who are you to try to impose your standards of morality on me? Only if there is some higher law that transcends human opinions can such matters be truly right or wrong, otherwise, we are left with nothing but the blind, pitiless indifference of nature. Pro also mischaracterized my position when he said "In this case we have completely shown the lack of a need for a absolute moral truth, for we who know what is indeed good when appealing to empathy will act on such good traits and not be subject to "oh well nobody says its wrong lets have fun" as my opponent believes." Where in this debate have I ever said that I believe people who view morality as he does will necessarily act immorally? Nihilist can act very moral, what they cannot do is provide any good grounds for their morality, and my opponent admits that he doesn"t have, even saying he doesn"t need any. But I sure think that when we sentence someone to life in prison, WE NEED a sound basis for telling them they did something wrong, don"t you? Thus, absolute morality is indeed necessary, for there had to be standard to which we appeal when dealing with those who differ from us. As for proof of God's existence, the universe is well fine-tuned, only an intelligent mind could be behind it. http://www.google.com... You can find a complete list here and decide for yourself if the impossible odds of us being here were beated by chance, physical necessity, or design. http://www.google.com... For me, and many others, only God is a logical answer. What kind of being could have created the whole universe and set its laws? You'd have to envision something very close to God.