it was not meant to be an argument, this is your primary issue. it was for explanatory power by the other guy, to explain what his position is not the validity of it.
I am also giving you an explanation of His operations, not attempting to prove the validity because if you cannot understand the position it would make it very difficult to prove the validity of it.
"Since you have no reliable access to God's nature, His process, his will/intentions or even of his existence" prove this is the case
"We have no way of knowing why or ability to rationalize good vs evil." prove this is the case
you still haven't justified how universal transcendentals like logic and truth objectively exist within your own framework. are you going to actually start backing up your assertions, or just keep cowering?
You are still missing the point his position is untenable. Why should anyone care how you believe god operates or what he says if god himself is not valid.
If you cannot validate the thing you are trying to explain then you explanation about the thing is undermined. Nothing more than speculation/fantasy
If you cannot establish gods validity> then grounding anything in a non valid god becomes pointless.