The Euthyphro dilemma involves wondering if God is considered all good and
just from the human perspective or because He declares it regardless.
The idea of God and justice is God's prerogative. He owns it all and can do
what he wants with it, including giving people whatever length of life, if any,
and quality of life. People are lesser beings to God similar to animals being
lesser beings than people but moreso. God has the prerogative to take human
life, or have it taken, as people generally assume the prerogative to take ani-
mal life, or use food or clothes from those who did, without judging those who
do as immoral. A person has the choice to abide or not.
To be unethical from human standards is to overindulge the self at another's
unnecessary hurt or expense, unfair regard or treatment, as by lying, stealing,
murder, bigotry, etc.
If He were all-beneficent from the human perspective, we'd all live in heaven-
ly circumstances forever and we don't. The choice to believe in Him or not is
analagous to the choice to believe in life or not, grateful for the chance at
life and what good is in it. Afterlife can be a sweetener on the deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
OT examples: depends on whether a conservative or liberal interpretation is
used. I'd recommend the liberal stances (regard of the OT, evolution, LGBT
people, separation of church and state short of proof of a God that wants
different, etc.) which should cover most objections.
The Euthyphro dilemma doesn't prove God doesn't exist since the above is
assumed for an Abrahamic God--God isn't all-beneficent from the human perspec-
tive or restricted to interpersonal human standards of prerogative--and the
basic God concept can adapt to new information and liberal stances when adding
specifics beyond that.
The Euthyphro dilemma doesn't prove God doesn't exist more basically because
the most basic concept doesn't come with a name, interventions, or character
determinants. It depends what specifics you add.
