@RayA75

If god does not want to intervene because he gave as a free will, as you say, believing in him provides nothing but an explanation for an event that caused existance itself to be. We don't even know yet if such an event was necessary, so there really is no point in arguing about that in the first place.

Morals change constantly, things that were taboo 50 years ago are just fine today. Saying that universal morals exist without providing proper evidence is nothing I would call scientific, I'd call it superfluous.
There are many examples for ideologies, evolution of ethics etc that support the idea that morals are very dependant on the time we live in.

There is a reason why ethics are such a highly debated subject many philosophers engage in. They help us adjust laws and whatnot to the current trends of morals and human nature in general.
You said before that you accept evolution as a fact, why would you exclude this rather small detail? It is not like you couldn't use god as explanation for the existance of morals in the first place.
You also claim that universal morals are not caused naturally. Well, before you proceed to find a supernatural cause for something I'd suggest proving its existance in the first place.



I keep my statement short because I'd prefer to discuss one thing at a time rather than many points at once.