"Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Whether you call it divine command theory, or Euthyphro's Dilemma, either way I hope one can see what this question is really saying:
If something is good because God says it, then it's an argument from authority fallacy; if it's independent of what God says, then we can determine right and wrong ourselves and we don't need God.
And that right there is why the question makes no sense: instead of showing why saying "God says so" is a fallacy, the question commits a false dilemma fallacy.
Furthermore, it never dawns on the one touting this that each and every person has the law of God already engraved on their hearts (2 Cor 3:7). In other words, there is no way you can deny the objective truth of an action, deny the objective reality of it, and still look honest.
The difference between objective and relative truth aside for a moment (though its day is coming) true Christians right away will notice that the second part of the question is not compatible with Christian morality…but neither is the first part.
In Christianity, we learn about God's law but we also learn about God's nature, and one cannot separate the two and understand each part by itself. In other words, God doesn't decide right and wrong on a pure whim, but rather in the order and rationality that God made in all existence.
Now, let's say for argument's sake that we don't need God to determine morality. That then begs the question of how we determine morality. I've come across six alternatives to morality that atheists use.
Let's see how none of them actually work, shall we?
"We should base morality on what brings people the most happiness."
One, how are we supposed to determine anything definite with a subjective notion like happiness?
Two, in practice, wouldn't this mean that pretty much ANYTHING can be justified as long as we say it makes us happy?
"People should allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
One, why this restriction? Why should I care about whether what I do hurts people?
Two, if all things are relative, doesn't that mean what hurts people is relative too?
Three, if humans are just animals, where do you find this notion in the animal kingdom?
"The majority can decide for themselves what's right and wrong."
One, given how fast information changes, wouldn't right and wrong change just as quickly?
Two, why would one person care what the majority thinks?
"We should let the experts decide."
One…once again, why would one person care about what the experts say?
Two, who decides who the experts will be? (this might be a dumb question, since the people who tout this notion usually make themselves the experts).
Three, what happens when the experts don't agree with atheism? (again, a silly question since atheists often ignore the experts when this happens).
"We can reason what is right and wrong."
One, since when do ideas exist in a vacuum?
Two, on what basis or for what reason should we use reason?
Three, how would we reach the conclusion only reason can be used?
Four, since when do we live our lives by just reason?
With so many holes in their laughable morality, no wonder atheists are such idiots.