In Plato's view, the Greek gods would disagree about pretty much the same sorts of matters as do human being, moral values (e.g. the good and the bad, the just and the unjust), what they mean, where they apply, and so on -- and they'd have about just a good a chance at attaining agreement on these as do we (i.e. not particularly good in many cases!)
no...it is easy. Posit a monotheistic god (thus no possible plurality). And posit a monopoly on access to this god (again, no possible plurality). The dogma needs to be shared with a plurality of people, so to circumvent contradictory interpretations use revelation as your epistemology to maintain the monopoly rights in both the creation and the transmission of the doctrine.
Mark Trumble I understand what you are saying, but the question would still remain... If we assume there is an analogy to piety in this "theoretical" religion, then is what is pious or good such because god has said it to be that way, or is it something that even such a god is beholden to?
All of this is rather besides the point. The Greeks had a pantheon of gods. The dialogue discusses how disagreement occurs between them. This video focuses on that particular issue. Saying: well, just don't have a plurality, when what we're discussing is the consequences of having a plurality, is quite literally a deus ex machina.
Does a god need to be self-consistent? Individisable, with no before and after? This would mean not self-contradictory, and changeless through time. If a god says one thing one time, and another thing another time, or there is no coherence in what is being said, could they be a god? We would have to deal with plurality in the one god.
After watching this video I better understand the ambiguity of morals, and why rather than arguing if Euthyphro is just/pious or unjust/impious Socrates is instead arguing the definition of the term justice/pious. Turns out the person who is using piousness to validate trying their own father for murder isn't even sure what being pious truly means. If Plato's story is indicative of the historic Socrates I can see how the Athenian authority would fine this type of argument threatening and abrasive, he is shaking their belief system for no other reason than to prove ignorance.
