Moral arguments have long been made in support of theism, but the Euthyphro dilemma has always seemed to be a strong counter. Is there any way a theist can get passed the dilemma without simply biting the bullet and accepting that moral laws are based on the arbitrary whims of God? Sure they could also accept the first horn, but it would seem to cost them there argument that God has to be the source of objective moral values. Basically, I have heard some say that it is a false dilemma -- that there is some other way of resolving it perhaps. Is there any good philosophical reason for making this sort of claim?
One classic theist response to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morality doesn't ultimately come from a contingent or subjective divine will, but from the necessity of the divine nature. Therefore, morality could not be other than it is and is not subjective, but morality's ultimate source is still God. So, God will's the things that he does because they are good, but not in reference to a standard outside of himself. Yet, that standard is not something arbitrary. There is ample commentary elsewhere on the web concerning the pros and cons of this alternative. In any case, I don't think its an obvious non-starter.