system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Can a valid counterfactual be constructed for Euthyphro's dilemma for a creator God?

In order to show moral values could or could not exist without God, a world must be conceived of in which the world exists, but God does not.
But, if we have an idea of God as a creator god, without whom the world would not exist, is it not contradictory to propose a world which can exist without God? Doesn't such require changing on the fly the defintion of God which is being used and proposing a world which can bring itself into existence?
Does proposing a world without God not undermine the creator God notion which modern reworkings of the Euthyphro dilemma in an abrahamic context aim to critically analyse? But here I mean undermine merely in the sense that the God which God is typically proposed to be is here abandoned, to be replaced with a God who isn't really the creator God, and thus doesn't the Euthyphro dilemma rest on an understanding of God which isn't the typical abrahamic understanding of God?
gpt
If one wants to discuss or even contemplate the existence vs nonexistence of God, one needs to be able to -at least counterfactually- entertain the notion that God does not exist. 

While it might be possible to make the argument that such a state of affairs is logically or metaphysically impossible, the mere pointing to the concept of a ‘creator God’ seems insufficient. After all, we might all agree that *if* God exists, then he created the universe, and thus take the notion of a creator God seriously and still also agree that *if* God doesn’t exist, then he couldn’t have created the universe.

Consider for comparison the argument that imagining that God doesn’t exist could never be interacting with the Abrahamic concept, since in the Abrahamic tradition God’s existence is an essential feature of the concept. So any argument against God’s existence rests on an understanding that is atypical for the Abrahamic traditions. 

Clearly this is not a successful counter, since it is the very truth of the Abrahamic teachings about God that are at stake in the discussion. Consequently it seems equally ill-advised to reject Euthyphro on the mere basis that it’s conclusions rule out a creator God.