Question

To the Rabbi, hello,
I will try to summarize your approach (as I understand it) regarding the move from deism to theism, and I would like to challenge it in order to hear from you whether there is some mistake in my line of reasoning.
A short summary of the Rabbi's approach:
(1) We have reached the conclusion that there is a God, that He created the world, and that He gave us free choice and a basic understanding that we ought to do what is good, at least in the moral sphere.
(2) It is reasonable to assume that God made the world for some purpose.
(3) It is not reasonable to say that the purpose is morality, since morality is instrumental.
Therefore, one would expect some kind of revelation in which He tells us what He expects of us beyond moral behavior. For the sake of the discussion, let us call whatever He expects beyond morality “the commandments.”
(4) And if one asks: why would He not implant within our minds knowledge of the commandments, just as He implanted moral values within us, and why did He prefer to reveal Himself thousands or millions of years after the creation of the world, and reveal Himself to only one generation and rely on tradition to transmit the commandments from generation to generation? The answer is: "His mindset is not like our mindset."
With your permission, I would like to challenge this line of thought by presenting an alternative line of reasoning.
(1) I agree with section (1) above.
(2) I agree with section (2) above.
(3) If God had a purpose beyond the existence of morality, it is not reasonable to say that He would not implant it in our minds as He did with morality, and it is not reasonable to say that He would reveal Himself after millions of years and rely on a fragile tradition.
(4) And if you say: but morality is instrumental, so what is the point of creating a world in which morality is upheld, if its whole purpose is to preserve that same world? The answer is: "His mindset is not like our mindset."
The idea here is that in both lines of reasoning there is an assumption (the "3" sections) and a refutation (the "4" sections) with the same answer ("not the same mindset")… The only question is what counts as the assumption and what counts as the refutation; it could go either way.
(5) In addition—and this is not the main point of my argument, just an additional note that perhaps strengthens it—I think that in fact, even if morality is instrumental, one could say that God wanted to create a world in order to create beings who could exercise judgment on their own and constantly improve themselves if they only wished to, even if only in the moral sphere, similar to what the Rabbi calls a "higher need" in the name of Rabbi Kook.
If this line of reasoning is plausible, then there is seemingly no special reason to expect that there would ever be a revelation (unless, of course, one gives decisive weight to tradition).
Is there, in the Rabbi's opinion, any mistake in this line of reasoning?
Thanks in advance.