Also obviously, God's existence (if one takes it as a given, which I know you don't, but still...) makes His position on what is and isn't 'good' the one that really matters in the end.
But why? Just stating that it's true begs the question. How could you possibly ascertain this?
I'm not sure it's obvious even beyond that, since some traditions posit a God that isn't at all benevolent.
All right. God as defined in Western philosophical and theological traditions. To an extent morality becomes tautological at that point. To an extent morality is tautological anyway. The way to ascertain it would be to have God existent and judging one based on such-and-such standards.
Precisely what omnibenevolence means in practical terms is, though, a bit difficult to nail down one we realize that in a worldview that assumes God as absolute Creator it's an almost entirely reflexive concept.
I think you are also making an assumption that if there was a god, it was capable of conscious thought. Part of the reason why I doubt the existence of one is that all thought requires matter and energy; you cannot 'think' without electrical impulses bouncing around brain matter. Since notions of a creator god pre-exist the creations of both electricity and matter, then how could a deity possibly think to then act? Unless of course you simply make an exception for the deity. If you end up having to make exception after exception to justify a concept then you end up defending what is indefensible.
