Question

Hello,
I had a question about the argument from morality that the Rabbi presents on the site. As I understood from your words, the argument from morality is that one cannot derive norms from facts. And assuming that morality is objective and binding, then it exists in a prescriptive realm. Therefore it requires a sufficient reason. After all, how can there be a command without a commander?! And consequently it is fitting to assume that behind it there is a commander who wrote morality "in white fire upon black fire."
But it seems very puzzling to me how the Rabbi did not mention the famous objection to this conclusion. After all, moral truths are necessary truths (like logical necessity).
For example, the idea that it is forbidden to kill people is true in our world, but we also believe that there could not exist a parallel world completely identical to ours in physical terms in which killing people would be a morally neutral act.
Consequently, this teaches us that moral understandings are true and necessary truth-statements. So hitting people for no reason simply has to be forbidden.
And once these are necessary truths, that shows that morality is true no matter what the case is. Therefore we cannot argue from the existence of moral laws to the existence of God.
The only argument that can be made is an argument on the physico-theological level: that if not for God, it would not be likely that we would know the truths of morality.
And this requires further investigation.
Tuvia