Objective morality

Did the rabbi read Sin and Punishment? If not, I recommend it.
 
Part of the question is phrased as a statement, but this is for the purpose of properly presenting the position.
The rabbi says that anyone who thinks that objective morality is valid believes in God.
The question is whether there is even a valid objective morality. Why do we need the "ought", I'm fine with the "is". The intuition of morality does not seem to me more metaphysical than the intuition to remove one's hand from a boiling pot (the intuition that pain should be avoided). In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov makes rational and utilitarian ethical arguments to justify an act of murder (Ubermensch style) and as the plot progresses, the arguments are not refuted, but the human pain following the act breaks Raskolnikov's soul and body. I will explain the message I understood with an example: you can think that there is no validity to avoiding pain, and you will stop avoiding painful things for completely rational reasons. But as a human being, this practice will fail (no matter how justified you are, you will still stop dipping your hand in boiling water) and this completely applies to morality. An ordinary person who starts stealing will break down mentally. We were built to behave according to some norms – which may have contributed to the survival of our ancestor, similar to avoiding pain. And suddenly the answers of ethical relativists no longer sound absurd to me. I have no argument with someone who holds a different moral system than me, I simply try to impose mine on them, because it is forced upon me.
When I say that stealing is bad, I am expressing my instinct, that stealing is bad, just as pain is bad (at least my pain). I see no problem with our attributing a different weight to a moral statement than the statement "I don't like tomatoes", it is simply a more basic and universal instinct. Evil is not an objective attribute of stealing, but a human experience of rejecting the act. And even if we go a step further and say that morality has validity like logic, it is still simply an is that is imposed on me without forcing a valid imperative.
Morality is simply a reality that is forced upon me, perhaps even like mathematics. Does anyone oblige me to 2+2=4? Is there such a commandment? It is forced upon me, so is morality. Does the rabbi claim that even by virtue of mathematics one can deduce God?
An attempt to deny the validity of logic will lead me to a contradiction, and an attempt to deny the validity of morality will fail practically. Logically forced mathematics and existentially forced psychological morality.
Perhaps the question can be summarized as: Perhaps a moral sentence can be understood as a descriptive sentence. A natural phenomenon. Like fire burning?