For anyone that's interested I think I figured it out.
Intro
Philosophy is about asking questions and exploring truths. There are no definitive answers in philosophy, the euthyphro dilemma is no exception. We as humans have trouble understanding things outside our universe. This can be said for all philosophical arguments for god. Yet when there is an argument against or for god it is somehow definate. If it was definitive it would not be philosophy anymore but rather a fact. When I say good in this I’m refering to my version.
Argument
A= Things are good because god says they are
B= or does god say something is good because it is good in itself
if A is true then god is not morally good because he can change morality on a whim and anything can be good.(Not morally perfect)
if B then god is subservient to another moral code and has to obey it. (not all powerful)
Counter-argument
First this is a false Dichotomy
god can say they are, they can be that way inherently, they can be both, they can be good because of the system, etc.
Good is not defined properly in this scenario. (complex topic but I’ll keep it short) So many people have different definitions of good so the very answer to this question can be affected by that. For this response I will use my philosophical theory based on interactions and logic. Good is a human concept that is based upon interactions. Then logic is used to determine what will produce the most positive results.(ie happiness, respect, safety, security, saving lives, respecting others,making a good society) Why can’t hurting others be okay if it produces positive results for myself. If everyone is selfish than they need to rely on themselves which can be stressing, emotionally tolling, and leads to everyone having the “every man for himself philosophy”. If we all care too much for each other then we will not worry about ourselves. If we balance this out than we get both positive results from ourselves and others. Producing positive results is not selfish because it helps everyone. This helps build a friendly society, but not a gullible society.
These positive results could be different but then the universe would have to be different. For example if we could not communicate than the good act of compliments would not exist.(this is my theory on what is good) (more on this in another article) Now imagine if communication was suddenly thought of and possible in a world without communication. Would adding communication produce more positive results? If so then it would be the good thing to do.
If we say that Nihilism is true and morals can be whatever we want this is still not a problem. This means that god can make whatever morals he wants. Then they adjust those morals based on their experiences and what they find to be better standards. Others should strive for these higher standards based on those with more experiences, but if god exists he has the most experience and understanding. Therefore we should follow god.
Next the results from choices A and B are not accurate
In choice A we are hinted at the idea that God is choosing arbitrarily and not for any reason. Just commanding someone does not make an action inherently wrong or right. I can command that we all eat pizza, but this is not wrong or right. Since this god is omniscient, all knowing, all powerful, etc we have to assume that there are probably reasons for rules.
B does not mean god is not all powerful because god can choose to behave in a certain way. He is not limited if he makes a moral code and decides to behave that way. Choosing to purposely limit yourself is not a sign of weakness. Imagine a bodybuilder that lifts less weight because he doesn’t feel like it.
So in B god would have created the moral code and followed it which is like A and I’ve already proved A does not affect his benevolence. Using reason based off of interactions also does not mean god is submitting to a higher power since this “higher power” is coming from his mind.
In B we see there is an appeal to something higher than god which could simply be defined as god.
This shows a poor understanding of god. God is the highest of high there is nothing lower than him. We also see a faulty understanding of concepts. Good cannot exist without interactions and minds to determine the positive results. God is not weaker because he thinks of something and follows that ideology. We may argue that god’s teaching should be loved more, but is that really a hinder on power?
What makes god’s character good?
Is his character good because he is god or is his character inherently good. The question is flawed because of a misunderstanding of what is good. Good made from the mind and interactions+thinking=best possible results=good. Since god understands all interactions and can determine everything that is good he can produce the best possible results. Even though god is submitting to a moral code that does not mean he is less powerful, but rather that he created the moral code. (sorry if I repeat myself
...alot) Asking why god is good is like asking why New York pizza is pizza. It is an inherent quality that cannot change but it does not affect how powerful that object is.(ie God is existence )
Also consider that good may just be a characteristic that is co-eternal to god and necessary for him to be god or that the characteristic is part of god.*see quote below.
Can god change his character?
If not then god is not all powerful, if he can then why is his nature good. The question is flawed changing nature does not imply that he is not all powerful and/or that his morality is flawed. There are certain ways god has to be though in order to be god. For example god has to exist, be omnipotent, etc. Not having the choice to change some of these does not affect him being all powerful in fact that makes him all powerful. Even if he could change them that would not make him less powerful or make his nature good. There is a difference between being able to change and the actual act of changing. Also consider choosing never to change is that a violation of this? No especially if you're an omnipotent being.
Relying on our intuitions
If our intuitions are products of god then can we rely on them to determine what is good. Sometimes our morals can lead us astray and cloud the real goodness behind it. In mario dying is not that bad, but in dark souls it is the worst thing you can ever do. In a world where you cannot die, the good does not exist unless it is thought of.
Example: god is alone but decides that it would be logical to make company for himself. He designs are world in which no one can die(except by god uncreating them), but people can be hurt only by eating grass.(IK crazy right) The circumstances dictate eating grass causes pain which is a negative result(exact opposite of a positive one) However eating everything else is seen as good. Now god made interactions in which he can produce negative results on his creation. Since god is adhering to good he chooses not to uncreate them all.
Concluding remark
after all of this I’m still uncertain about what good is and how god determines it. Hopefully I have shown what is wrong with these types of statements and prepared others with responses. Even if I did not do a good job we may just have to consider that this is just an unknown quality about god. Is that really bad that there is an unknown quality about god? Even with all this info I still cannot be certain since we do not know what good actually is. Anyway I will restate a few points. Good cannot exist without minds. We need interactions and logic to determine the best results. These best results are good. God made the system and determined which rules would suite the system the best way. Anyway I got a life to do.
rebuttal to objections
still waiting
Quote that is kinda related.
Geometry existed, before the creation. It is co-eternal with the mind of God. Geometry provided God with the model for the creation. Geometry is God Himself.
Johannes Kepler