What would I need to get an answer to those questions?
Common ground. For example this thread is on morality. If we can not come to a place where you would at least concede, "sure, there are some good arguments for looking into morality being objective."
Notice, I am not asking you to just blindly throw away your position. As you can imagine, this isn't my first rodeo, as it is no anyone else's here. My point in conversing with you is not to win an argument. It is to glorify God, and see your soul won for the Kingdom. (That's as candid as I can be.)
My experience demonstrates that there are those who will deny the possibility of objective morality at any expense. Even if it means painting themselves as a borderline sociopath. First let me say that you've demonstrated yourself well for a good part of this debate. You seem to have some sincere interest in actually understanding these positions. But you also exhibit some signs, that create an impasse for us to address those next questions.
Your own question really answers this,
Or any other crazy thing I could come up with about a creator.
To get a serious answer, you have to start with a serious question. One of the habits of non-believers is to attack from multiple positions at the same time, bombarding with the next question before the previous one has even been rightly addressed. Or, if the answer weakens the non-believers position, then the pattern is to do the, "well what about this, well what about that," approach. In fact, I did already address some of those things earlier when we were talking about the character and nature of God. For example you asked, why is the God of the NT different than the God of the OT. I responded, "If you see me disciplining my child one moment, and later hugging my child, did I change?"
To ask the question, means you need to have an argument with facts that support the NT and OT reveal a different or changed God. Based on your silence to my response, I can only assume that you don't. That perhaps you simply picked up this objection, and that in reality it is not your own. That is a very common occurrence. I can't say positively that this is the case. But I have found that many do not arrive at their own objections, but instead place their faith in the objections of others. Others they've never met, or even questioned.
So, it would be very difficult to progress without even being able to come to some agreement that OM is a feasible, logical and reasonable possibility. It is one thing to say, you are not convinced of objective morality. It is another to say you know that there is no objective morality. It's a self refuting argument. If you claim, "there is no objective morality," then you are claiming that YOUR OPINION is objectively true. You can not disprove OM by holding to objective positions. To this point, I have seen little position to reject OM other than faulty analogies, and your feelings. I've politely discussed why your feelings are not a device for determining whether something is or isn't. Feelings do not determine facts. Also, you are dragging things (analogies) into a discussion that don't pass the test. No one is saying you can't value something (your granddad's watch) more than someone else. It is just that it doesn't apply. No one here is saying that subjective morality doesn't exist. Let's make it clear now. It does. I like analogies and use them, as you can tell. But they have to hold up to reason.
You and I both know, that if you come to see that morality is objective, your entire world view will crumble. It is not as if you don't know what is at stake. Everyone has a worldview. A faith position. But if you are going to so religiously cling to that position, I would expect you to be able to say more than, "that's just how I feel."
A good many Christian, before they were converted, watched the rope they held to, unravel, and snap.