Atheism and nihilism

[stevevw]

Yes, different people can value the same thing differently. I'm not sure I see the relevance to the conversation, or much of a point here. Is it supposed to be a shocking revelation that not everyone applies the same subjective judgements as everyone else?

I thought we were talking about moral values/judgments as the OP is saying that atheists make moral judgments about Christianity. So using any values like someone valuing and making judgments about a food flavor over another or using pain and pleasure as the value for what is right and wrong as the value is different from moral values.

I was asking if some people make these judgments about Christianity as being morally wrong what is the moral reference point they use to make these judgments. Using values that equate to "likes and dislikes" or pain and pleasure don't justify the moral judgments against Christianity because those values are not about morality but rather subjective preferences about tastes or feelings.

In that sense, subjective morality unless grounded in some sort of moral lawgiver is really nihilistic because there is no moral basis for what is claimed. Yet an atheist will claim they are making moral judgments and I don't doubt they are. But I am asking what is the basis for their moral claims. Are they really borrowing their ability to make moral judgments from God? Or is there some other source independent of humans where morality can be grounded.

 

[stevevw]

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer to send me all the money they have in their wallet right now - seems like that would be a good way to actually demonstrate that something which only "matters today" "never really mattered in the long run".

So far, silence.

It is almost as if this "it has to be eternal or it is meaningless" stuff doesn't actually work here in reality.

It is a matter of priorities rather than forcing the choice to be either have it or don't have it. We need money to function in society, But there is a difference between having to need that and wanting it to the point of making it more important than the non-money and material aspects of life. For Christians as the Bible says you cannot have two gods, money and God. There are degrees of values and it is what you make as a god that is important.

 

[Ken-1122]

No as far as I know there isn't obvious disagreement as to what Jesus said especially his teachings.

As far as you know? Lemme guess; you don’ty know what is said about Jesus in the Koran do ya.

No there is only one set of writings about what Jesus says that all Christians believe and follow and that is what is written in the New Testament. If we were to apply it to a subjective system then all those other books you mention about Jesus would also have the same status as the New Testament as one of the subjective views about Jesus. But they are not. They are relegated to the false prophet status.

You relegate them to false prophet status because Christianity is your religion of choice. A Muslim would regulate your religion to false prophet status because Islam is his religion of choice. But still, regardless of which version of Jesus you believe, what ever claims are made of him are only accepted by those who already agree with what is said of him. So again; how is his word any better than mine?

 

[stevevw]

As far as you know? Lemme guess; you don’ty know what is said about Jesus in the Koran do ya.

I do, but the Koran is written 600 years after Christ walked the earth by a person who is using visions and no eye witness accounts. Who is likely to be correct.

You relegate them to false prophet status because Christianity is your religion of choice. A Muslim would regulate your religion to false prophet status because Islam is his religion of choice.

That's a logical fallacy and not how things work and have nothing to do with whether I believe in Christianity. We are talking about historical records and even non-biblical records acknowledge Jesus and the Christian movement. We don't use some records of other figures in history written 100s of years later and say they are valid. We use the records that are made by eyewitnesses.

Otherwise, we could say that anything said about other historical figures that was written much later are just as valid and true as the original records, and if anyone disputes this they are just doing so because they are biased.

But still, regardless of which version of Jesus you believe, whatever claims are made of him are only accepted by those who already agree with what is said of him. So again; how is his word any better than mine?

Are you serious? Jesus's word is better than yours because from the time of his crucifixion and resurrection a movement (Christianity) sprang up where people went to their deaths on what Jesus said and Christianity has grown into the dominant religion of the world. Millions of people have believed the words of Jesus and even non-religious people as we use the birth and death of Jesus to mark time as in BC and AD. So that is the difference. Somehow I don't think you have had this sort of effect on people.

Many non-religious historians accept the gospels and Pauls's letters as records from that period just like they accept records of other historical figures. The descriptions of places, people, artifacts, furniture, landscapes, buildings, equipment, etc have all been validated through archeology. So there is no reason to doubt what the Bible claims were said.

Jesus made some pretty big claims such as He was the son of God and He was the way, the truth, and the life. He mentions many times that His word is "truth". He also says that there is no other way to God and that there is only one God. So people may not believe what Jesus says but we can be pretty sure that He said what He said.

The fact that Christianity srang up just after he was crucified for making these claims and has not ceased and only became bigger and bigger shows that His word had a powerful impact on the world. Most of the western civilization used His morals to so I think there is the support that what he said was taken seriously.

 

[Ken-1122]

I do, but the Koran is written 600 years after Christ walked the earth by a person who is using visions and no eye witness accounts. Who is likely to be correct.

That's a logical fallacy and not how things work and have nothing to do with whether I believe in Christianity. We are talking about historical records and even non-biblical records acknowledge Jesus and the Christian movement. We don't use some records of other figures in history written 100s of years later and say they are valid. We use the records that are made by eyewitnesses.

Otherwise, we could say that anything said about other historical figures that was written much later are just as valid and true as the original records, and if anyone disputes this they are just doing so because they are biased.

The Koran was written later than the Bible and Jesus was not the focus of the Koran as he is of the Bible so I can understand your belief that the Bible is more accurate concerning Jesus life when compared to the Koran; but that does not dispel my claim that the Muslim will believe what the Koran says about Jesus over what the Bible says. And this also doesn’t make the Bible accurate, perhaps less inaccurate than the Koran, but not accurate.

Are you serious? Jesus's word is better than yours because from the time of his crucifixion and resurrection a movement (Christianity) sprang up where people went to their deaths on what Jesus said and Christianity has grown into the dominant religion of the world. Millions of people have believed the words of Jesus and even non-religious people as we use the birth and death of Jesus to mark time as in BC and AD. So that is the difference. Somehow I don't think you have had this sort of effect on people.

Popularity is not an indicator of truth. The fact that those who follow Christianity became some of the most powerful and dominate people in the world does not mean their belief is based on the truth.

Many non-religious historians accept the gospels and Pauls's letters as records from that period just like they accept records of other historical figures. The descriptions of places, people, artifacts, furniture, landscapes, buildings, equipment, etc have all been validated through archeology. So there is no reason to doubt what the Bible claims were said.

The fact that the Mississippi river exist, and slavery once existed in the USA is not proof that the story of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are based on actual events.

Jesus made some pretty big claims such as He was the son of God and He was the way, the truth, and the life. He mentions many times that His word is "truth". He also says that there is no other way to God and that there is only one God. So people may not believe what Jesus says but we can be pretty sure that He said what He said.

How do you know Jesus actually said this? Because some men claimed he said this? How do you know those men were telling the truth?

 

[stevevw]

The Koran was written later than the Bible and Jesus was not the focus of the Koran as he is of the Bible so I can understand your belief that the Bible is more accurate concerning Jesus life when compared to the Koran; but that does not dispel my claim that the Muslim will believe what the Koran says about Jesus over what the Bible says. And this also doesn’t make the Bible accurate, perhaps less inaccurate than the Koran, but not accurate.

But we have to use [/quote] Most non-believers demand evidence for Jesus and Scholars set about providing that evidence. That evidence comes from writings in the Bible which are from eyewitnesses written soon after the events but also non-biblical writings. So it is only fair that we use the same critique with the Koran.

The Koran agrees with just about everything the Bible says about Jesus, His teachings, His miracles, His virgin birth, and Christ's crucifixion, etc. The only thing they disagree is that Christ did not die on the cross but was raised into heaven alive and that He is not the son of God and in fact, they say that Jesus himself said he was not the Son of God.

Where does this evidence for these claims come from well nothing, nothing of any worth 600 years after Christ? But even if we go along with what the Koran claims the fact that they have to include Christ and acknowledge everything except these two matters is significant for the support that Christ existed. That they agree He was able to do supernatural miracles and was at least one of the highest representatives of God is enough to support Christ's teachings should be taken seriously as a basis for morality.

But if we want to apply the same scrutiny that people do to the Bible we can confidently say there is no validity in what the Koran says about Jesus not claiming to be the son of so even if they want to believe that there is no support.

Popularity is not an indicator of truth. The fact that those who follow Christianity became some of the most powerful and dominant people in the world does not mean their belief is based on the truth.

That's right, so we either call all the disciples who were put to death for their belief and all those early Christians who did the same as delusional and the many millions who followed as also delusional or we can say that there is some truth to such a massive amount of people going to such great lengths for their beliefs. Jesus has pulled off one of the greatest con tricks in all history.

Sometimes when there are so many people and there is such a big effect that popularity is evidence. We use that form of support often in surveys and as to what is best and right IE a book, movie, song, lecturer, teacher, politician, etc can be liked by more people for a good reason, IE because it is good and worth something.

The fact that the Mississippi river exist, and slavery once existed in the USA is not proof that the story of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are based on actual events.

But unlike the story of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn eyewitnesses and historians who write about the real events in history seen and mention Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus lived a little over 2000 years ago, was born, preached, had disciples and was crucified by Pontius Pilot.

How do you know Jesus actually said this? Because some men claimed he said this? How do you know those men were telling the truth?

This is said and attributed to Jesus many times by different people including in the Old Testament. You would have to conclude that everyone was either a liar if you want to reject everything said. We don't do that with other historical writings so why the Bible. There is good evidence from religious and non-religious scholars that the Bible as it was written is true. No other book has been scrutinized as much. The Bible has been analyzed by many from the way, it is written and the things it mentions and it always stands up.

But I don't want to get into a debate about the truth of the Bible or Jesus as this is off-topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's a similar reason to why most Christians don't commit suicide.

Which is?

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought we were talking about moral values/judgments as the OP is saying that atheists make moral judgments about Christianity. So using any values like someone valuing and making judgments about a food flavor over another or using pain and pleasure as the value for what is right and wrong as the value is different from moral values.

Feel free to explain rather than assert.

I was asking if some people make these judgments about Christianity as being morally wrong what is the moral reference point they use to make these judgments. Using values that equate to "likes and dislikes" or pain and pleasure don't justify the moral judgments against Christianity because those values are not about morality but rather subjective preferences about tastes or feelings.

Same here.

In that sense, subjective morality unless grounded in some sort of moral lawgiver is really nihilistic because there is no moral basis for what is claimed.

False.

Yet an atheist will claim they are making moral judgments and I don't doubt they are.

Speaking of claims which are made without a basis for them.

But I am asking what is the basis for their moral claims. Are they really borrowing their ability to make moral judgments from God?

No.

Or is there some other source independent of humans where morality can be grounded.

Not that I've seen so far.

 

[stevevw]

Feel free to explain rather than assert.

OK feelings such as pain and pleasure cannot equate to right and wrong morally because well their feelings and feelings are not a matter of morals. The same with likes and dislikes. They are about tastes and preferences rather than moral behavior. No one can be held morally accountable for disliking something or feeling pleasure or pain. What can be determined as pain or pleasure could be a number of things including what many people would think was immoral?

Same here.

?

False.

So if subjective morality is only about an individual "likes and dislikes' or feelings which is not really equated to morality as explained above then where is the morality. How can it be grounded for there to be morality?

Speaking of claims which are made without a basis for them.

What claim do you say I am making without any basis.

No.

Then where are morals grounded beyond the person themselves.

Not that I've seen so far.

So if there is no source for morality beyond humans then how can people make truth claims about morality beyond themselves.

 

[durangodawood]

Because in Heaven, only "good stuff" exists.

So all the little petulant thoughts we have even as adults get filtered out?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

To reiterate my point: because nearly all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, a faith that provides a good moral foundation and enables believers to avoid eternity in hell and inherit salvation, it therefore makes sense to think that atheism and nihilism go hand in hand.

No, that does not make sense. At all.

Firstly, "religion vs nihilism" is a false dichotomy. I grant that you derive your morality, or at least claim to, from Christianity. So if Christianity is false, you are without a foundation. I am not you, though. Christianity is irrelevant to my moral philosophy. It could be true or false, and wouldn't make the slightest difference to me.

Secondly, nihilism is a moral foundation. Whether it's a "good" one is necessarily a subjective consideration.

 

[durangodawood]

...In that sense, subjective morality unless grounded in some sort of moral lawgiver is really nihilistic....

Is a moral lawgiver any less nihilistic? I mean, there's no basis for the laws other than "what he says goes".

What seems the least nihilistic, to me, is laws based on the observable conditions of what makes human life satisfying in a deep and enduring way. The short version of this is: "wisdom".

 

[Strathos]

Which is?

We have a job here on earth.

So all the little petulant thoughts we have even as adults get filtered out?

Rather, we will not be tempted to have such thoughts in the first place.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most non-believers demand evidence for Jesus and Scholars set about providing that evidence. That evidence comes from writings in the Bible which are from eyewitnesses written soon after the events but also non-biblical writings. So it is only fair that we use the same critique with the Koran.

Eyewitness events? When Nicodemus came to Jesus in the middle of the night, who was the eyewitness there? Who was the eyewitness of the detailed accounts of Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane? The Disciples were asleep remember?

The Koran agrees with just about everything the Bible says about Jesus, His teachings, His miracles, His virgin birth, and Christ's crucifixion, etc. The only thing they disagree is that Christ did not die on the cross but was raised into heaven alive and that He is not the son of God and in fact, they say that Jesus himself said he was not the Son of God.

Those are some pretty big differences don’t cha think? If the resurrection of Jesus was proven to be a hoax, and it was proven that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, what would that do to your religion? If the resurrection of Jesus was proven true, or that Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God, what would that do the Islamic religion? Those differences are not as minor as you seem to suggest.

Where does this evidence for these claims come from well nothing, nothing of any worth 600 years after Christ? But even if we go along with what the Koran claims the fact that they have to include Christ and acknowledge everything except these two matters is significant for the support that Christ existed. That they agree He was able to do supernatural miracles and was at least one of the highest representatives of God is enough to support Christ's teachings should be taken seriously as a basis for morality.

Religious followers claiming supernatural miracles by their religious leaders happens all the time. There Rastafarians still around today who claimed when Halle Selassie stepped off the airplane and waived his hand across the sky, it immediately began to rain thus ending the drought. Are you gonna take their word for this miracle event as proof of the Deity of Halle Selassie?

That's right, so we either call all the disciples who were put to death for their belief and all those early Christians who did the same as delusional and the many millions who followed as also delusional or we can say that there is some truth to such a massive amount of people going to such great lengths for their beliefs. Jesus has pulled off one of the greatest con tricks in all history.

Nothing new here; between Heavens Gate, Jonestown, and countless others there is no shortage of people willing to give their lives for their religious beliefs.

But unlike the story of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn eyewitnesses and historians who write about the real events in history seen and mention Jesus.

Who were these eyewitnesses who wrote of Jesus?

Most scholars agree that Jesus lived a little over 2000 years ago, was born, preached, had disciples and was crucified by Pontius Pilot.

But they don’t agree he constantly preformed acts outside the laws of nature.

This is said and attributed to Jesus many times by different people including in the Old Testament. You would have to conclude that everyone was either a liar if you want to reject everything said.

The fact that so many disagree on exactly what is attributed to Jesus; obviously somebody is lying! Perhaps they all are to one degree or another.

We don't do that with other historical writings so why the Bible.

Historical writings of people preforming acts outside the laws of nature are met with the same skepticism as the bible.

There is good evidence from religious and non-religious scholars that the Bible as it was written is true. No other book has been scrutinized as much. The Bible has been analyzed by many from the way, it is written and the things it mentions and it always stands up.

Again; there is no evidence that the miracles claimed in the bible actually happened; this is not something supported by scholars.

 

[stevevw]

Is a moral lawgiver any less nihilistic? I mean, there's no basis for the laws other than "what he says goes".

God is by nature all good. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. Goodness flows from Him to us and therefore there is no command to do good. It is like a sun that has the right amount of heat to warm us. Warmth naturally flows from it to us so God cannot by nature be nihilistic.

What seems the least nihilistic, to me, is laws based on the observable conditions of what makes human life satisfying in a deep and enduring way. The short version of this is: "wisdom".

But how are you grounding wisdom? What basis are you using to say that wisdom is of any value. What basis are you using to say that conditions that make life satisfying are morally good? Who said having a satisfying life is morally good. These are all human views about what is good in that they are determining certain values as being right or wrong. Yet those values have no independent grounding.

Even if you use science to objectify satisfaction or wellbeing, there is still no independent reason why satisfaction or wellbeing is right as a moral value. It is only a preference or like that humans have decided as opposed to other preferences. This does not equate to morality and therefore it is still nihilistic as far as moral values are concerned because these qualities that people are appealing to don't really exist morally but rather are preferences.

But the fact that humans believe that there are moral values and there is no nihilism morally and try to ground them by using different ideas shows that they intuitively know that moral values are real. Because they cannot account for them independently from themselves and believe they are real points to moral values coming from beyond humans. What people appeal to with morality being subjective may actually be appealing to objective moral values.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God cannot by nature be nihilistic.

So, you see a proposed god-concept that includes aspect A - nihilistic morality, in this case - and say "no, that can't be Yahweh, because he doesn't have A, he has B."

That necessarily implies that there is a standard by which you are judging Yahweh. One which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

Or, does Yahweh dictate his own nature? Then your on to the problem of arbitrariness.

Which horn of Euthyphro would you prefer?

But the fact that humans believe that there are moral values and there is no nihilism morally and try to ground them by using different ideas shows that they intuitively know that moral values are real.

Of course there are moral values.

But value is necessarily subjective. Invoking a god will not magically make it objective.

 

[stevevw]

So, you see a proposed god-concept that includes aspect A - nihilistic morality, in this case - and say "no, that can't be Yahweh, because he doesn't have A, he has B."

That necessarily implies that there is a standard by which you are judging Yahweh. One which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

Or, does Yahweh dictate his own nature? Then your on to the problem of arbitrariness.

Which horn of Euthyphro would you prefer?



Of course there are moral values.

But value is necessarily subjective. Invoking a god will not magically make it objective.

I just explained how the Euthyphro problem doesn't apply.
God is all good by nature so good like love, kindness, generosity, justice, etc naturally flow from him to us. He does not need to command us to do anything as He and His good nature is known to us without God having to make commands. But because of the nature of good and evil, it naturally flows that we have a moral obligation to do good to others.

So God does not favour certain morals above others making them morally good because His nature is all good and always has been. This is like a natural law where its constitution is what it is and cannot be anything else for it to exist. Nor does God favour certain morals independent of Himself making them good because of the same reason. He is naturally all good and good morals naturally flow from Him to us.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I just explained how the Euthyphro problem doesn't apply.

Yeah, you tried to. But it does. Any proposed solution to the two horns of the dilemma - call it X - will always collapse back to the same question:

Is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X?

If he is, X is arbitrary. If he isn't, X necessitates no ontological basis in him.

 

[stevevw]

Eyewitness events? When Nicodemus came to Jesus in the middle of the night, who was the eyewitness there? Who was the eyewitness of the detailed accounts of Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane? The Disciples were asleep remember?

So what about the eyewitnesses who were themselves the ones who experienced the events or that there were other witnesses apart from those in the events written. How do we know there could have been another witness in the garden at the time who is not mentioned or that Jesus didn't explain what He was doing himself. How do we know that Nicodemus didn't tell someone else what had happened? You are making assumptions. The person who is writing the events is not concerned about explaining how he knows what he is writing about because they are not thinking they prove things.

Those are some pretty big differences don’t cha think? If the resurrection of Jesus was proven to be a hoax, and it was proven that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, what would that do to your religion? If the resurrection of Jesus was proven true, or that Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God, what would that do the Islamic religion? Those differences are not as minor as you seem to suggest.

So you've answered the reason why yourself. Obviously there was a lot invested on Islam to show that these two crucial events didn't happen. In a court of law that would be known as motives for doing what they did. But let's keep things in perspective here. We are talking about two lots of writing. One from eyewitnesses written around the time of the event and one written 600 years later by someone who claimed these things without any witnesses or witnessing the actual events.

Once again in a court of law who is likely to be more believes as to what happened. If a person got up in the docks in some cold case hearing and said I saw the events happen in a vision while in a cave 20 years after the event happened compared to eyewitnesses who would be more likely to know what really happened. You're giving a lot of credence to something we would usually think unreliable.

Religious followers claiming supernatural miracles by their religious leaders happens all the time. There Rastafarians still around today who claimed when Halle Selassie stepped off the airplane and waived his hand across the sky, it immediately began to rain thus ending the drought. Are you gonna take their word for this miracle event as proof of the Deity of Halle Selassie?

And yet we celebrate Christs birth and death and use this for measuring our timeline through history. Actually claims about Halle Selassie's divine status are based on the same Bible that Christ is the promised Messiah. So if you want give Halle Selassie his status then it is only fair to do the same with Christ's status as the son of God and Messiah.

Besides the miracle of Halle Selassie is misunderstood. It was already raining before he came and stopped raining when he arrived. He dies as a man and never ascended to heaven like Christ.

Nothing new here; between Heavens Gate, Jonestown, and countless others there is no shortage of people willing to give their lives for their religious beliefs.

Yet these movements died out and are seen for what they are actually mad and deluded people. Funny how they all claimed to be representing God and yet contradicted what Christ said. These are known as false prophets.

If you listened to the people who belonged to these groups you would see that they were unsound in how they saw the world and spoke. There was no rationality and reason for their thoughts. This is important as it lends support against these people being deluded and crazy for what they claimed. Yet the disciples and others in the Bible including Jesus speak rationally and are of sound mind.

Who were these eyewitnesses who wrote of Jesus?

Primarily they were the disciples and though not all wrote directly themselves has scribes write down what they saw. There were also many people who witnessed what happened even hostile witnesses whose testimony could also have been used and was used. Also back in those times events were shared orally and so were kept alive.

But they don’t agree he constantly performed acts outside the laws of nature.

Apart from the Bible, there is non-Biblical support for Christ performing supernatural acts and for Christians believing he did and therefore dying for that belief including support from people who did not believe in Christ.

Josephus writes that Jesus was "a wise man who performed surprising feats". Alluding to Jesus performing miracles. That "He was crucified under Pilate, and His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians".
Josephus was not a Christians so this is independent support for Christ.

From the Babylonian Talmud, it says "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

"Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. The term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.

But it is the claim that Jesus is accused of sorcery that is of interest as this implies He performed supernatural feats. It seems Christ's miracles could not be denied even by his enemies so they made out to be evil acts like sorcery. This is similar to how the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons in Mathew 12:24. So here we have support from a hostile source that Jesus performed supernatural feats.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Historical writings of people preforming acts outside the laws of nature are met with the same skepticism as the bible.

I'm not sure about that. Look at King Arthur and Excalibur, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc to name a few.

Again; there is no evidence that the miracles claimed in the bible actually happened; this is not something supported by scholars.

I agree but that doesn't take away from the fact that His teachings are the standard for morality from God.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, you tried to. But it does. Any proposed solution to the two horns of the dilemma - call it X - will always collapse back to the same question:

Is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X?

If he is, X is arbitrary. If he isn't, X necessitates no ontological basis in him.

So you didn't understand how in God just being naturally good and nothing else that he does not choose morality nor command it. He is and always has been "good" rather than chooses to be good or a good independent of himself. He cannot choose good it is impossible for him to do so.

It isn't that God wills something because it is good. Nor is it that something is good because God wills it. Instead, God wills something because "He is good". It is God's own nature that determined "the good". Because God is good His commandments reflect necessarily his nature. The commandments of God and our moral duties are rooted in God's essence. So they are not arbitrary but rooted in God Himself nor are they grounded in anything external to God. God is Himself the good. It is like saying the sun wills or chooses warmth whereas the sun is just warm by its nature. It cannot will or choose warmth towards us.

Responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma
https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/#H3