>>17869812
>God needs some kind of value system to motivate him to do things like create the universe, and all value systems add complexity
God can still have a moral system, for example https://quran.com/6/54 where God states he has prescribed mercy upon himself. Out of simple pure will according to Asharis and nothing more. My point is you don't need to argue for the specifics of what that system actually entails if you leave out omnibenevolence as a hard requirement. Think of it like this, let's say you have argued for the need of the necessary being as a prime mover that has fine tuned reality and is a conscious agent with a will, etc. If you posit that God requires omnibenevolence then you now actually have to argue for it too before you can make your case why revelation was given. Someone skipping that step has an easier time arguing for God because he can just go to revelation.
>It would if your thinking of it as a fact of reality was emotionally motivated
I see where you are coming from but consider that people don't just feel comfort out of this belief. Hell for example is a thing many people fear and probably why they became less religious when that part of the brain got shut off.
>So a philosophical theist would like to believe that there are more direct ways of discerning God's will for ourselves.
Besides intuition/natural theology there's not much more you can do here because we are not omniscient. At best you can maybe come up with general moral principles like the golden rule? How can someone reason for example the prohibition against dragging your garments on the ground? Only revelation can tell you it's due to pride https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5784