Just a few info, corrections, and nitpicks.
Plato was recording from the dialogue between his teacher Socrates and a man name Euthyphro. While Socrates was standing outside the courthouse waiting to be tried for corrupting youths with his skeptical mind, he met Euthyphro who was there to accuse his father of murder. What happened was 2 of his father's slaves fought each other and one killed the other. His father ordered the surviving slave to be tied up and sent someone to the city to ask for advice. Back then, it took days to go the city and back. When the servant finally came back, the slave had died of exposure.
Socrates asked the man why he was there to accuse his father of killing a slave. He said that it was the right thing to do. Socrates thought for a minute and asked his question.
Teapots writes:
At this point, most theists would probably respond with the idea that "goodness is an essential part of God's nature." However, this is only moving the goalposts. For one thing, it is still circular (God is good because God is good) and, also, if God's nature was such (hypothetically) that genocide and torture were morally commendable, would you think that moral too? In addition, just because God is a certain way, how do you deem that "good"?
I would also like to point out another problem with the theists' usual response. By saying god's nature is good, the theists has taken away god's free will. To them, god could never approve of atrocities. This means that god has no free will since it is incapable of committing evil.
Get ready for some very long and jargonic posts coming from buzsaw, iano, and other theists here. Watch this, haha.
™ Version 4.2
