Adjective: moral
Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles

Right and wrong are primarily established by the group/tribe collectively. It's not a roll of the dice, it is based on what ensures the best cooperation between the group as a whole. We didn't arrive at what is commonly accepted as a general sense of morals (don't murder, rape, steal, etc.) today by accident, they are based on past mediation and arbitration. We collectively came to the conclusion these things are harmful to our ability to cooperate. There is nothing illusory about it.

Yes, morality does change with time, culture, etc. A lot of what is commonplace today was very amoral in the past. Morality changes with society. Social animals have morality as well, in a lot of different species violating the morals of the group/troupe/herd/etc. can result in exile or death.

Morality is strictly about cooperation, it is religion that associates it with divinity. Religion goes the extra step of instead of arbitrating behavior with a physical worldly judge it implies there is also a supernatural judge. Even without religion, you can still experience guilt for carrying out acts that go against the morals of your group. The whole point of guilt as a feeling is likely to keep you cooperating with your group which ultimately is essential to your own survival (and survival as a species).

We play charades with the universe.

As a shortcut we've created the concept "tree". Using tree, we don't have to play the entire game of charades to understand what it is we've encountered. We don't have to go "It is tall, it has a hard surface, it has limbs extending from it, it has tendrils going into the ground, it..." we collectively have labeled and defined such things as being "trees" so when we encounter something that meets the general qualities of a "tree" we can just jump right to the conclusion "this is a tree".

Being able to do this allows us to prioritize our attention, we don't have to sluggishly spend all our time dissecting everything to figure out our environment we can quickly use the labels to get our bearings which in a dangerous situation, for example, will allow us to navigate our way to safety expediently.

All things we see, hear, touch, smell, etc. are initially just raw information. They are stimuli that is sent to the brain and it is the brain that encodes all of the data into the concepts we perceive. When you think about sound, for example, it actually activates the ear as if you were hearing something externally. When you imagine something visually it activates the eyes (this is why the eyes move around when you are asleep dreaming). Our sensory organs are just data gathering tools, the brain is what puts it all together.

"Consciousness" is another way of saying "directly aware of stimuli", that is when you are conscious and perceiving you have some agency over the data you are taking in through your senses. "Subconscious" is data that you are accessing without being directly aware of it. You can pull data from the environment but also from stored memories.

Anyways, if you were taught all your life that "trees" were an ancient race of beings who judge the deeds of humans and that your ancestors must be buried before them and fed to them in order to ascend to some higher plane of existence, your whole concept of "tree" would be vastly different. Sure, the raw data you gathered through your senses might be the same but how you interpret them would alter how you store them into memory. They'd likely not fee the same, smell the same, or look the same to you (for example) because you'd be sensing them with a sort of reverence and awe.

We play charades with the universe, everything we "know" boils down to (sometimes educated) guesses. We know, at least through shared experience, there is raw data out there but our interpretations could be way off and we'd never know it because we are seeing existence through our particular vantage point.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Not exactly. Outside of religion morals serve the purpose of fostering cooperation and cooperation is essential for any social species to thrive. We have a lot of hard-wired system in the brains that are geared towards sensing each other's pain, pleasure, etc. and inflicting guilt when we feel we have violated the integrity of our group. Morality is just the codified extension of what we already have built in us. Fear and stress are usually what drive people to violate these in-built moral functions (for example, the fear of scarcity which is tied to the fear of death leading to the urge to rob another or the thrill of shoplifting as relief from the pressures of restrictive social norms). You don't need a concept of "God" to have a sense of "morality".

(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
They exist in the sense that they are a kind of collectively agreed upon contract wherein everyone in the group agrees this is good and that is bad as a means of keeping everyone on the same cooperative page. They are a fairly nebulous series of collective concepts manifested from social-oriented functions in the brains of those in the group.

(3) Therefore, God exists.
God is not needed for "morality" so this is a faulty argument. I am a bit of an "apatheist", so the way I see it if "God" exists things are the way they are, and if "God" doesn't exist things are the way they are. I am okay with either because regardless of which case is true I will do the best I can to be a "good" person and if that is not good enough I accept whatever consequence comes of it.

Not to go on a tangent, but personally while I don't necessarily believe "God" exists in the form of a person-like entity, it is observable even through science that we are connected through all things. I mean, everything we are made of exists on its own out there in the universe. There are precursors to us (if you believe in evolution). Life exists as one big web of things that make up things that make up things. There is a creator there, whether it is the "big bang" (if you believe that theory) or all things collectively as one big existence.

To say it is or is not intelligent is an effort in futility because we only understand intelligence so far as the human mind is capable of understanding intelligence, anything beyond that scope is outside our ability to define. So though I am not really concerned one way or the other when it comes to whether "God" exists, at least observably I can see that there is definitely creative forces at work.

I'm new here so bear with me. There is a lot of weaving back and forth going on in this thread so I am just going to go back to the OP's first post and respond to that.

Being an avid video game player I have a few thoughts on the matter. Though in video games you can resort to the brute force method of keep stubbornly failing into the safety net until luck prevails and you finally bypass the barrier by happenstance that is not really your only or best option, and it comes with a hefty cost (your time and enjoyment). It's also not the only means of "starting over" in the game.

It's a repetitive cycle that happens because you are likely trying to hard to make one strategy work, you forcefully apply it over and over believing that there are all these other factors and reasons for why it isn't producing success rather than allowing yourself to just accept the strategy just does not work, at least not in the situation or manner you are applying it in.

We run into this rut outside of gaming in everyday life all the time, especially where interacting with other people is concerned. Our brains love shortcuts and habits and give a great deal of resistance when it comes to abandoning a belief.

The best way to succeed at a video game is to apply a variety of strategies so that you can learn which strategies work in which situations and also have multiple strategies for any given situation. Take fighting games for example, they are like high speed games of chess. If you use the same strategy over and over your opponent will pick up on it and punish you, especially if the strategy didn't work in the first place. No amount of stubborn application will turn the strategy into a win. In order to win, you have to be adaptable.

This is true in life as well. People misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest", it doesn't mean the "strongest" it means the "most adaptable". The primary goal of saves and reloading in video games is that it gives you a chance to figure out how to adapt, how to reexamine the situation and develop new strategies to try. If you reload over and over trying to somehow make the same strategy work then yes, you are indeed sabotaging yourself as even if you succeed you will have learned nothing, you will not have developed your ability to adapt.

This has application in life outside of video games. Maybe you are the crummy husband but your wife gives you another chance. If you take that chance and repeat the same exact behavior you did prior somehow thinking it will work this time things will likely deteriorate. However, if you reexamine the situation, try to figure out your mistakes, and devise new strategy you will adapt and take one step forward towards being a better husband.

Like anything, video games have a lot to teach you but only if you go in legitimately looking to improve yourself. I like playing difficult games because I can practice keeping my composure under excessive stress, I can practice thinking "on my feet" and quickly adapting to situations, I can practice supporting teammates and self-sacrifice, etc. I can make the experience fruitful, it doesn't have to be a waste of time or an act of self-sabotage.

As with all things you'll get out of it what you put in, so if what you are getting from the experience isn't to your liking it is time to start considering what it is you are putting in to the experience.