The Euthyphro Dilemma Argument

As stated in the Divine Command Theory (DCT) of Moral Wrongness, an act is wrong if and only if it violates a command of God. However, there are many oppositions to this theory, the most famous being the Euthyphro problem. The Euthyphro problem is known as a dilemma argument, meaning the structure is set up as follows; either God’s commands are arbitrary or God’s commands are based simply on his knowledge of right and wrong. This dilemma argument is formulated in such a way that if you believe either statement and its following conclusion to be true, the DCT is then inherently false. For example, if the former is true, then God has no moral authority and if the latter is true, morality is independent of God, both cases dispelling the theory.
For example, if I were a defender of the Divine Command Theory, I would argue that although God’s commands are arbitrary, God still holds moral authority. To further explain my case, I would acknowledge that if God’s commands are in fact arbitrary and hold no moral authority, that means they must be based on random choice or whim, rather than any reason or system. However, that cannot be the truth when my faith teaches me that God’s commands are necessary to create order in society. If it is to my belief that God is the omnipotent power and makes no mistakes, then I must also believe that God does have a reason for his commands and without them, we would be worse off as a society. Those who are against the Divine Command Theory like to label God’s commands as arbitrary because they are not be able to understand the reasoning behind them, but there does not mean there needs to be a clearly outlined background for a command in order for it to be moral. God would have not created the command in the first place if He thought it would not help to preserve order in society, making it reason enough to prove the Divine Command Theory. By denying the conclusion to the first horn of the DCT, I have resolved the Euthyphro