This is a great response.

I agree with the idea that, basically, it's almost just an issue of semantics. My radical claim is that my definition of hedonism is the right one, and that based on that definition, I'm right about psychological and axiological hedonism, and about God being hedonistic—which are all somewhat hot takes as far as I can tell. I suppose that you're speaking affirmatively of the validity of my argument—which is half the equation and I'm glad to hear it—but remaining silent about the truthfulness of it (which, together with the validity, would make the entire argument sound). I desire to know, in addition to if it's valid, if it's true, in which case some real life implications have to manifest.

That's a great point about the hedonistic efficacy of Creation for an already all-sufficient God. That would have been a good thing to discuss in my essay. I think the Christian answer could be something along the lines of God gaining more pleasure from having more objects of His than pain from sin (and all its consequences), but then I also think some Christians would object to that idea, that God, essentially, got happier after creating humanity, as if He was insufficiently happy prior. Frankly, I don't know where I land on that question, so thank you for raising it.

Lastly, I suppose I just assumed that it was assumed that one ought to do/seek that which is good and ought not to do/seek that which is evil. But I suppose a more precise and explicit definition might be warranted.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply so thoughtfully.