निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
But your explanation ends up being circular: "God's not relevant because God's not relevant."
Dude its not circular. I gave you a perfectly valid reason: the scope of moral agenthood is not relevant to God, because God is not a moral agent.
The are cases where human beings are both authors and enforcers of laws, but are still subject to them, so I don't think this argument works.
Yes in these cases the humans are subject to the laws. Many religions claim that God transcends these laws. Which is my whole point.
That doesn't follow. None of the reasons why animals don't have obligations under the law apply to God.
How is this for a valid argument
Human beings are the only moral agents
God is not human being
therefore God is not a moral agent.
(1) is supported by many Abhrahamic religions (who believe that God's laws are there for mankind, not animals or inanimate objects. (2) is also supported by most monotheistic religions. Which leads to (3).
Also, we're not talking about law; we're talking about morality: right and wrong. "What is legal" isn't necessarily the same as "what is right."
I understand that. My point was, just like Law applies to a specific group, so can morality. It is objective in the sense that it exists independently to that specific group.
Again: that "other view" isn't Divine Command Theory.
It is a form of DCT. There are many variants of this theory as a result of euthyphro dilemma.