Religion is more of a moral solvent than a compass. What formerly was limited to tribe and clan, extended to nations and empires – social cohesion. The obvious reason religion prospers.
Of course what I do or believe to be right or wrong is a matter of opinion. To believe otherwise implies someone somewhere claims a right to tell me what to do. Who precisely is that, for I wish to moon them at once.
The usual religious ethics seem to be pretty user-friendly, socially valuable, and compatible with what is known or surmised about both evolution and human nature. The ethics which seem to work over time seem to be the ones beneficial to an individual, to a family, and to a society, and they do not seem to be arbitrary, but rather more similar than not, worldwide.
What is “wrong” is wrong because it is inconvenient. Tends to cause regret, at least when subsequent events are not as desired (one loses the war for example). Others are more likely to feel aggrieved and/or retaliate. Society in general may react that way as well. Are not those enough negative consequences for wrong-doing?
Perhaps one might hypothetically consider setting the word “God” to mean that which is everywhere, that which addresses any issue, and that which is always sufficient and powerful unto itself. That’s the traditional definition afaik. The word “Universe”, if there were no “God”, would have roughly that meaning also.
Perhaps God IS the Universe, or vice versa. There is surely some tendency for living things which have descendants to over time fit their niches in the great scheme of things. One might consider how both chance and resulting changes for the starting condition of the next roll or the dice, or Divine Command, might easily lead to what we see around us.
If the practical implications as to sources, status, future, and ethics are quite the same, what difference does it make whether we term it Divine or divine?