The Euthryphro dilemma asks whether morality is good because God made it so or whether God made it so because it’s good. In the first case, morality is relative because it’s based on God’s decision. If he decides to make it different for whatever reason (a change in biblical Testaments for example), then he can. Morality is not absolute. In the second case, morality is inherently good, therefore God proffers it to us. But this takes away his omnipotence and his utility as a moral authority. He is demoted to the status of ontological moral messenger. He does not decide, but only conveys the already existent. To say that God wouldn’t put forth a bad morality is simply to acknowledge that the moral has its goodness independent of God. Therefore, we don’t need God for morality. It also acknowledges that God lacks the power to change what is good. God could not possibly make child-molesting a noble and dignified act. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent. I propose a third argument for debate: God is that morality. I don’t believe it myself, but put it forth as a solution to the dilemma.
(This material comes under the Judaic material – Indicting God – in my book, Buddha is an Atheist).