You might want to send a copy to any of a number of philosophical journals, because if your proof is valid and correct, then it will be among the greatest accomplishments in philosophical history.
As a starting point, you might want to come up with an answer to this age old question:
Regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma, which for the benefit of the newbies, asks the question -— Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality?
The challenge forces us to consider an important detail in any discussion on the nature of morality: GROUNDING.
The word “ground” originally meant “the lowest part, base, or bottom of anything.”
The task is to identify the logical grounding of piety or virtue. What base does morality “stand on” ? ( this isn’t the only question believers in God must answer, this is the same questions atheists ( those who insist that we must be “good” ) must answer as well.
As I see it, A law is only as legitimate as the authority upon which it rests. The U.S. government can’t pass laws governing Canadians. Our federal laws apply only to the people of this country. Individuals can’t make up laws that apply to their neighbors. They don’t have that authority.
The founders of our country argued that even governments are subject to a higher law. Certain truths are transcendent, they argued, grounded not in human institutions but in God Himself. This appeal to higher Law was their rational justification for the morality of the American Revolution.
The problem of grounding morality is a difficult one for atheists who claim one can have ethics without God. Certainly, an atheist can act in a manner some people consider “moral,” but it’s hard to know what the term ultimately refers to. It generally means to comply with an objective standard of good, a Law given by legitimate authority. However, without a transcendent Lawmaker (God), there can be no transcendent Law, and no corresponding obligation to be good.
A ‘moral’ atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. The atheist’s morality has no grounding.
Does the believer in God fare any better, though? I believe he does.
I believe Euthyphro Dilemma us a false one. There are not two options, but three.
The believer in God can reject the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power.
And he can reject the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.
The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the IMMUTABLE CHARACTER of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but ROOTED in His INTRINSIC HOLINESS.
Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? I think the answer can be “No,”, “God would never do that.” It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.
Morality is not anterior to God—logically prior to Him—as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature.
Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.
In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.
Now let’s say Dawkins is right — that God is non-existent... on what objective basis do we *GROUND* our beliefs that one act is better than its opposite ?
If we are all but products of accidental collision of atoms, then what we observed in the late 1930’ and early 40’s in Auswitz or Treblinka was the natural phenomenon of an accidental collision of atoms called Nazis hitting upon accidental collision of atoms called Jews. It’s all NATURE. Where is the evil or good there ?