Reddit mentions of Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics

The theist would deny that "anything could be God's nature". This is what the theist would call a vacuously true claim. God's nature is necessarily fixed, so there are no possible worlds in which his nature is such that murder would be good. Such worlds are called "logically empty worlds". Any claim whose truth value is determined by such a world is vacuously true. For a more thorough defense of this response check out Is goodness without God good enough?

But I'm not interested in going much further than this. I'm merely answering your original question, that yes, most philosophers do think the euthyphro dilemma is decisive against divine command theory, but then again most philosophers neither read nor keep up with contemporary developments in philosophy of religion, much to the detriment of the discipline. Also, see here. So the interesting question to me would be "what do the people who keep up with philosophy of religion tend to think of the euthyphro dilemma?" to which the answer is "it depends. Atheists think it works. Some theists don't think it does, and some (catholic) theists agree with the atheists and instead favor natural law theory."

So I guess the true answer is "yes, but it's complicated."