I can't fathom it becuase it is illogical. In a debate, logic rules. For example, you said: Your statement is simply untrue. If there is no God, there must be another source, or sources for man, as man did not create himself. That source may have absolutes and they may be categorized as moral.
This doesn't make sense. You can't name another source for absolutes! Why not? If you can't name it it doesn't exist! If it isn't God, then man is the ONLY choice left.
I've already given you my moral absolute: Liberty. Its source is the process that created us. In other words, we were created in such a way that liberty is a moral absolute. It is moral because we have the choice of denying liberty. But, if we deny liberty, dire consequences will ensue. Dire consequences always have and always will result from enslavements.
Non sequitir. Liberty is an absolute right but is not a source for absolutes. "Dire consequences" have nothing to do with the question at hand - which is, what is the source of moral absolutes? No one is arguing as to whether liberty is a moral absolute, what we are trying to find out is: WHO SAYS LIBERTY IS A MORAL ABSOLUTE? You? You have no moral authority and neither does Ayn Rand! Our founders declared it for you in the Decl. of Independence - "...endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..." In other words, this moral absolute is from God. Name another source for it that makes sense. You cannot. Therefore, my statement stands. Moral absolutes must be from God, or man makes up his own - there are no other choices.
WHO SAYS THERE IS A GOD? You?
Among the many unsupportable things you've asserted, this may be the most ridiculous.
A hundred years ago, nobody could name a black hole. Did they exist a hundred years ago? Certainly. Not being able to name something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sheesh.