Again, I didn’t understand.
If God didn’t invent it, and it is instead an absolute truth on its own, then why do we need Him in the role of giving it force? A schnitzel doesn’t need validation that it is a schnitzel—so what exactly did God add?
And why is only He able to determine such force?
Thank you very much.

This is not a question of invention. It is a question of definition: what is good? Murder is bad and helping another person is good. These definitions are like logic, and therefore are not under God’s control. Just as 2+3=5 is not under His control. But the question of why I should behave that way still requires an answer. For that you need God. No other factor can obligate all of us to behave in a certain way. See the fourth notebook or the first book in the trilogy.

I saw it, I saw it, I saw it!!! I’m really trying to understand!
But if morality precedes God, then doesn’t it obligate by itself?
Do you mean that one must uphold morality because God said so, by virtue of the ontic connection? I don’t think so. You do claim that morality today is valid in itself, that it is a value.
So what did God add??? If this is good and evil, then it obligates in and of itself. Why does God make it binding?
Because He knows everyone?!
I thought you meant that God actually defines what the good is, because otherwise every person would think differently.

Now I understand that I didn’t understand. Honestly, it’s frustrating.

Thank you very much. It is beyond me how you have the patience for us.

I can’t understand what is unclear. The definition of morality is not in God’s hands, just as logic is not in His hands. But without the force that morality receives from God, a person could choose not to act according to it. He would understand that murder is bad, but still would not see any prohibition against murdering. It would be a neutral definition.
You assume that the good is binding in itself, and I argue that nothing that is a fact of reality obligates anything at all (the naturalistic fallacy). Only God can obligate us to do or not do things.

Rabbi, there is also the claim that the good is God’s “nature,” and that He validates the command to do good.

Is that what you meant? Because if I remember correctly, at one time that was your view, but now in the responsa it slowly seems that you hold that the concept of the good is external to God, sort of like a “logical” definition of that kind, while with the concept of command you remained where you were.

I don’t see the difference between the two possibilities.

Okay, I give up.
So after there is a fact called good,
I don’t understand why, if God says that this is how one should act, it becomes binding (and not because of His command, as a decree), but because He somehow loaded it with some kind of force. So what if He said so?????? How does that turn a fact into a binding value?!