I’ve kind of liked working through this argument because it shows one either has to choose the God of Christianity or no god at all, unless there are religions out there I’m unaware of that the Gods love us just because. Other gods cannot exist unless they are evil.
As I understand them, Islam and current Judaism do not affirm this, so they’re out. Their God makes morality independent of God.
Nope.
But you tried.
Surely you can see how this isn’t an answer to any serious question? Why does the moon some times disappear? Because it some times disappear! The stone is heavy because the stone is heavy. The carpet is fuzzy because it is fuzzy. I am tired because I am tired. Why am I an atheist? Because I am an atheist! None of these are meaningful answers to the question. The idea that God is good because He is good doesn’t get off the hook here. It makes no more sense than any of the above.
The most charitable interpretation I can give your statement is something like the following:
We think that God is good because our understanding of God’s character and behavior(which you might summarize as God’s nature) corresponds to what we think is good.
Now, that would be a sensible statement, but it would raise an important follow-up question: What is it about God’s character and behavior(God’s nature) that makes you think it is good? That is, in what way is it good? What is this goodness-thing you speak of, that make you think God’s nature has it?
If your answer is simply that the goodness thing is God Himself(his nature), then you’ve just made a circular argument.
Close, but no. It’s that we KNOW God is good because he tells us about His character and behavior in the Bible, as well as what Christians call his general revelation (nature). Also God directly spoke with people before scripture was given.
See these Bible verses I used to try to explain the concept earlier.
What He especially makes known to us is that His nature is good because He is love. In the triune being of God He loves Himself outside of having any creation to love (the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Spirit, the Spirit loves the Father, etc). But He wanted to show His love also to creation, so He created us to be like Him as much as a creature could be (in His image). And He further makes His love known that while we were sinners (hating Him) the Father sent the Son into the world to pay for our sins. He satisfied His justice, and satisfied His love.
Someone telling somebody about himself does not make him moral, never mind the objective standard of morality.
You’re also perilously close to running aground on the Euthyphro. On what basis to we judge his “character and behaviour” as good?
Ah, but I am not asserting the gods’ non-existence. I’m simply pointing out that gods being the “standard of morality” in no way follows from any of the other attributes traditionally associated with gods. Your claim that if any of the gods exist, they are the standard of morality, is simply empty; it is a non sequitur.
This Christian philosopher does not share your idea of circular reasoning or else he as an expert would disqualify his own statement:
Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro’s dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God’s immutable nature.
This Christian philosopher says that Abraham was able to recognize an innate morality only because God was innately moral. And we know that moral character is fundamentally good in nature.
The way Abraham responded when he first learned of God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us a clue to the answer:
Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)
Here’s the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.
Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn’t need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.13
Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn’t need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes.
Are you ready to follow this to its logical conclusion? Are you now affirming that the God of the Hebrews exists in this so-called “pool” of gods? State yes or no clearly.
I find it difficult to give a clear answer to an incoherent question. But it has no bearing on the fact that your claim that one of the gods, by virtue of being a god, would be the standard of morality. That’s a non sequitur without regard to whatever-the-heck-it-is you are asking.
Alright, if you have now thrown logic to the wind, then I now am free to throw your argument to the wind as well. I asked you a direct question: Do you now affirm the existence of the God of the Hebrews? The God of the Bible text? Yes or no.
That’s a big if. Too bad for you.
No, that isn’t the question you asked. No, I do not affirm the existence of any of the gods. But this, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the point: that your claim that such gods, if they exist, constitute an authoritative moral standard. That remains a non sequitur, whether the god you have in mind exists or not.
Having a nice game of Pigeon Chess, Puck?
Ok, that sounds more like you. You needed to back peddle on that one because you were getting ready lose ground you could never regain.
So where are we? Back to the beginning. You must now prove the non-existence of God.
No, you must learn about this thing called “logic”, and stop demanding that others act in accordance with the perverse caricature of it that you insist of following.
Now that is circular! 
Wow, this IS pigeon chess. No, no backpedaling here. You’re just not very good at reading.
Nor, for that matter, very good at reasoning, I see. But I did already know that.
I know logic. Logic says you must prove that the existence of God is a more difficult position to hold philosophically than his non-existence. If you cannot prove it, then you are logically bound to prove his non-existence.
I think you should email Logic and get her to comment directly rather than us having to rely on your interpretation of ber view.
And nonsense such as that loses the argument for you.