Euthyphro Dilemma

Is something good because God commands it or not because God demands it? If it is good because God commands it, then it is by definition arbitrary and subjective. If it is good for reasons other than God's command, then there are independent objective reasons for why its good, morality is independent of God, and God is unnecessary for finding moral values. The first picture paints a fairly stark version of morality where what is considered good could include anything from rape to murder and what is considered wrong could include anything from charity to the color green. The second picture means that the theistic question of "without God, where do you get your morals?" becomes a meaningless question as morals are independent to God's existence. Each side of the dilemma is unfavorable towards the theist, which makes Socrate's argument undefeated since its conception.

Some apologists have tried to bridge the dilemma by offering obfuscated explanations of it being a false dichotomy. However, I just see this as them trying to have their cake and eat it too. Also, any argument that relates morality and God usually fails because of this point. For example, William Lane Craig's moral argument for the existence of God:

1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.

If objective moral values exist, then it does not infer that God exists since objective moral values are independent to God's existence (the second prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). The only way for the first premise to be true in the form of "If there are moral values, then God exists" is to say that God is to claim that God is the reason for why something is considered moral, which is by definition subjective (the first prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). For this reason, the first premise is false.