Kix, you don't need God to accurately determine morality. I don't have time for a huge post here, but basically:
1. The overall happiness & suffering resulting from a given action reliably indicates whether this action is moral or immoral, and you do not need to posit anything supernatural to figure this out.
2. Going off of the basic idea above, humans should do good things because they will leave a lasting positive impact long after we die and avoid bad things for the inverse reason. "Now" is such a tiny slice of the human experience...the future is far, FAR more important.
3. It is a topic I struggled with myself for a long time before finally beginning to grasp things, but there are plenty of answers to your concerns. The whole fine-tuning argument does not hold up well at all, either, unless you think all of science is part of some giant conspiracy. And there is plenty of solid evidence against that if you decide to go that route.
4. I actually agree with you that moral relativism is a false and potentially dangerous route, but religion will not be the solution; it's had plenty of chances already and failed every one! What we need is some sort of belief system tailor-made for human nature and based on skepticism, one that does not require any unrealistic behaviors like abstinence or fasting. This has become one of my life projects, actually...
Respectfully,
Josh.
Yeah just so you know I'm not attacking you in anyway in this response. In fact I'm glad you responded.
1. Says what? Who? You? Does it really matter? Still God is the only thing that would tell you why any moral stance is moral/immoral and it is the only place where objective morals can come from.
2. This means absolutely nothing. Why shouldn't people think in terms of there lives - you know the only one that they have? What reason is there to care about the future or others? So how long does human existence last anyway? If someone does not care it ultimately does not matter if you are a mass murderer rapist pedophile or Mother Teresa. You all end up in the ground and your consciousness ceases to exist.
I think there is a lasting reason for the feeling of morality that people have. It does not exist from atheism.
3. The fine tuning holds up just fine. This is what science says, the question is how it is best explained. No one really questions the improbability of our circumstance. Let's look at some numbers and we will go that route. Again remember fine tuning does not equal optimality.
A change in gravities' strength by only 1 in 10^100 would have not allowed life to exist within the universe (P. C. W. Davies - he's a physicist). The Big Bang's low entropy condition just existing by chance is a 1 out of 10^10(123) chance (Roger Penrose of Oxford). Furthermore the constant that basically dictates the inflation of the universe is very specific, like 10^120. So you consider this sheer improbability and then you have to consider these simply do not need to be ridiculously fine tuned within themselves, they have to be even further to each of the other constants together. Wow.
So I encourage you to multiply the improbability over and over again until you get incomprehensible numbers. So I don't think you have any evidence against this but I would assume you would be talking about optimality but that does not change the improbability of our circumstance.
4. Do you know why it fails? It might just fail because what is right might just be what people in their nature do not want to do. Still I think that God could be the only rational basis. In fact the Judeo-Christian God is the only one I see that stays consistent with statements about God's very nature and moral commands. You can basically see that what is right stems from God's very nature and is not independent of it.
Again you want to take the route where we have morality formed to no basis. It is just what you want to think and you can not point back to anything rationalizing why it is. So why even bother?
And again I will mention that I think the Transcendental argument and Kalam cosmological arguments are very good. The Transcendental argument deals with conceptual logical absolutes which must exist in any circumstance rationally and they can only be accounted for by a reflective mind outside of the universe. Kalam is about the cause of the universe and I usually like to go into the argument in some clever way because it's funny how it works.