It’s almost Shabbos in London, so I haven’t got much time here.
If you understood my last post the way I intended it (I haven’t read your response well enough to work it out for myself), and you still had a question, it boils down to one response:
From a logical viewpoint, there should be nothing. You are right, and you are fighting as a rationalist, and therefore you will be able to have the last word in any intellectual discussion over here. Which is why I agreed with you in the last round.
Your mistake, however, is that you don’t understand what morals are, and therefore you don’t understand how it is that it could be a ?????. Morals shouldn’t exist, but do. HKB”H placed a ‘mental blockage’ in most humans with an innate sense of Right and Wrong. What wrong means is irrelevant; you know beyond a doubt that it is wrong. That alone – understandable or not – is enough to make you accountable. I believe it is this last paragraph which is the essential argument between you and me. Are you with me?