Ok...I see the problem. Morality need not specifically linked to god. For example; Humanist can make their own moral value (without god's word).

Hence,
The burden of proof for believers lies on their holy-scripture (either it was from god or not). This is because; their entire faith is on the idea that "god had made this commandment, when it was true, god is true!". -For example; To proof god, they need to point-out to their holy scripture and said: "this commandment is true because god is true", rather than pointing at something not mentioned in their book.

Obviously, there's no way to prove god empirically.
_

One way to test the existent of god is to tackle this problem directly at its source (the source is the holy scripture, not the person). We must verify that people can make similar version of the commandment even without god (this will prove that god is not required, as with the Humanist argument). -To do this, we must observe isolated group of people, and see if they can came up with "the commandment".

"Obviously, there's no way to prove god empirically."

Well, no one has succeeded in doing so thus far. How do I know that for sure? Because had God's existence been proven empirically [rather than analytically or by definition or tautologically] we could not go anywhere without being inundated with it. That is all every news outlet, internet blog and neighbor would be talking about. "It's true! God exists!!"

Nothing like that yet though, right?


"One way to test the existent of god is to tackle this problem directly at its source (the source is the holy scripture, not the person). We must verify that people can make similar version of the commandment even without god (this will prove that god is not required, as with the Humanist argument). -To do this, we must observe isolated group of people, and see if they can came up with "the commandment"."

Most Humanist facsimiles have mores similiar to many of the Ten Commandments. Commonsensical proscriptions against murder and theft, or adulty and undo coveting. And most of them revolve around one or another rendition of the Golden Rule. Since we wouldn't want others to do certain things to us it is reasonable to predicate a moral agenda on a mutual recognition of this by all.

But then out in the real world [of, for example, dollars and cents, throbbing sexual libidoes and raw naked political power] things can get real complicated, real fast.

How about 'fate'? -the presence of fate would indicate the presence of a great-power that guided us all. It is like;- "I want to go from A to B, but I don't know how. Then... thru an unusual series of fortunate and unfortunate event; new-resources and information begin to inundated into me, enabling me to go a step forward and eventually reaching B." -this resources is considered to be the guidance of the great-power, as a 'help'.

Often, everyone won't be able to go to B from A, but are able to do so with the help of 'fate'. 'Fate' (or in other name) imply that; your goal and resources occurred simultaneously together at specific location and time-period, such that, it became most useful for your development at that particular moment. It may happen when doing a new-assignment or doing anything that's totally new (lack of info), but... as a crude example; lets say you're walking with a bag, this bag has a hole and the content are slipping. You cannot know when the content will slip out of this bag, nor you know it has hole, BUT, lets say a bicycle had pass-by and this bicycle caused you to check bag for leakage, then this is called 'fate'. We can say that; the-event (slipping) and the-goal (to check for slipping) is causally unrelated, but coincide, causing you to feel 'lucky' for prevent slipping.
_

Assuming 'fate' exist and related to divine power (reasoning is on next paragraph);
Then 'fate' that help immoral behaviour came from devil, and 'fate' that help moral behaviour came from god. This is because, (as we agreed...) god is "loving, just and merciful", while devil is the opposite. A crude example is: while you're walking with the same bag, (instead of a bicycle) a naked-women suddenly pass-by infront of you, and... since you're tempted to do the immoral thing; you stared at that women, hence, you forgot to check that your bag is leaking. -In consequence, you will experience the godly 'punishment'; the content of the bag is lost. (but it is lost regardless of the naked-women, right?)
_

From subjective perspective, 'fate' looks very divine. This is because, things happens together at specific time-and-places coinciding with the person's goal and aspiration... such that it became 'helping' or 'punishing'. (look at previous paragraph example)

But,
From system-point-of-view, 'fate' look like mechanistic. Things happens at specific time-and-places with specific goal and intention due to ripples of causal-relationship originating from a singular event. i.e; a gold-digger found a friend at an isolated-desert (-same places/time), because both of them heard the same news (-same trigger).
_

Although god is not definitive in this reasoning (but perhaps... still plausible in subjective point of view), it discusses another important area related to perception of god. -'Fate', when coupled with personal-aspiration and goal, created a sense of 'godly' or 'devilish' presence. For example: lets say you're thinking about 'hungry', then suddenly free-food became observable everywhere... indicating (in your point-of-view) something phenomenal is happening (godly presence/help/test or whatever coinciding with one's interpretation).

This kind of 'god' reside in the mind, rather than in the holy scripture.