The need for God for morality

If I understood your argument against David Enoch’s position that moral laws derive their validity from themselves (similar to the laws of logic or to general steps in reality, such as the assumption that the assessment of the factual state of affairs is not based on wishful thinking), it was that moral laws and other laws are called laws by sharing the name only – with only the former being ‘painted’ as a claim of duty that motivates action, while the other laws are merely descriptive, and therefore moral laws are the type of laws that need a legislator’s source – i.e. God. In fact, this is another formulation of the naturalistic fallacy – ethical facts do not rise to an ought without a commanding factor. But apparently, the assumption that one must listen to that legislator should also be formulated as an ethical fact (only that it contains one principle – that one must listen to God’s voice – and not a large number of ethical facts), so I don’t understand what advantage your argument has over his argument in establishing morality?