What you have just written is fundamentally illogical. First you say that the fact of moral failure does not matter. Then you say that it does not matter, about what standards really exist, but that it does matter, when it comes to God's being the author of those standards.
Only to those who can't reason their way out of a paper bag.
First you say that the fact of moral failure does not matter.
Where did I say this? It doesn't prove that the human tendency to be moral doesn't arise from human causes, or that we can discern useful morals by reasoning, dut it matters a great deal to those who are shafted by sociopaths.
Then you say that it does not matter, about what standards really exist, but that it does matter, when it comes to God's being the author of those standards.
To the extent that I can parse this, this is not what I have said. What you are probably reacting to is my claim that the existence of sociopaths equally indicts reasoned morals and God-given morals. In what manner to think this contradictory? In point of fact, I am not claiming universal infallible morals, so I'd expect sociopaths to exist--on the other hand, I'd have to regard God's absolute morals to be shown up as implementation design flaws because of God's inexplicable failure to build humans in such a manner that sociopaths can't exist. Why did God do this? Does God just not give a rip about His Creations? If so, why should we give a rip about Him?