Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[yiostheoy]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

So I take it that you are 10,000 years old and an eye witness then?

Where did you find your fountain of youth ??

 

[yiostheoy]

Atheism is simply a belief system.

It is no better or worse than any other belief system.

It has its pro's and its con's over other belief systems.

It was not an intellectual dead end for Bertrand Russell because he was an atheist and yet also a great philosopher.

Atheism worked for him.

If it works for you too then fine. If not then you need to seek and find another belief system.

I don't really have a belief system.

There is a fair proportion of people who indeed do not have any belief system and are not interested in one.

This group is usually called "uninterested".

 

[Skull Pilot]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

So I take it that you are 10,000 years old and an eye witness then?

Where did you find your fountain of youth ??

Just look at the history

We used to have a god for everything, water, sun, lightning, fertility etc etc

As we come to understand and explain the world we no longer need these gods

As of right now there are really only 2 big things we still don't know

How the universe began and what happens after we die

These 2 things are now the domain of the one god, the last god we will have

If and when we are ever able to fully understand these things we will no longer have a need for the last god

But as I said we may never understand the origin of the universe

 

[Iceweasel]

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence.

That's what I said and it outraged you. You got all upset when I responded to your question about pink unicorns. If there can't observe all the known and unknown universe you can't say what all doesn't exist, it just a statement of faith. Therefore atheism is a declaration of faith, you just proved it.

 

[Iceweasel]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

That's exactly where bog is. He makes statements of faith and believes in facts that haven't been discovered yet. He's horribly brainwashed or just dumb as a brick.

 

[Iceweasel]

Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

But god and religion are not synonomous terms. Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with man's input.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

But god and religion are not synonomous terms. Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with man's input.

Gods were invented to explain what people couldn't explain which is why we have throughout history gone from hundreds if not thousands of god to just one

 

[Iceweasel]

Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

But god and religion are not synonomous terms. Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with man's input.

Gods were invented to explain what people couldn't explain which is why we have throughout history gone from hundreds if not thousands of god to just one

You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.

 

[hobelim]

You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.

Very true.

what a billion religions would suggest is that there are at least a billion ways to sucker the gullible.

What more would any superior being possibly want or expect of humans other for them to aspire to become rational and compassionate people who say and do things that reflect the image and likeness of a holy and benevolent God?

 

[Iceweasel]

You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.

Very true.

what a billion religions would suggest is that there are at least a billion ways to sucker the gullible.

What more would any superior being possibly want or expect of humans other for them to aspire to become rational and compassionate people who say and do things that reflect the image and likeness of a holy and benevolent God?

Or it could care about as much about us as we do about gnats. I have no idea and don't make up answers to feel good.

 

[BreezeWood]

There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.

They are:

1 - Theism (God watches over me)

2 - Deism (God exists but is distant from me and I am on my own)

3 - Atheism (there is no God)

4 - Agnosticism (I don't know if there is a God or not -- show me a sign)

5 - Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)

Each of these is a belief system of some sort.

Modern Catholicism is theistic science. The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.

I can't speak for other religions.

Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative. This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.

This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.

.

This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

... directed faith particularly does not exclude the possibility for all others and is only a stepping stone, holding pattern to accomplish the task of realizing the correct answer.

faith is what everyone is born with, the answers are for those that accomplish the goals in life to advance and become a part of the Everlasting.

from Antiquity, they believed who surmounted the Apex of Knowledge to set their Spirit free would first be Judged before being released to make sense for if it is possible and accomplished beforehand, those or the Almighty could intervene to prevent the dark side from contaminating the genome of life.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

faith is what everyone is born with, the answers are for those that accomplish the goals in life to advance and become a part of the Everlasting.

from Antiquity, they believed who surmounted the Apex of Knowledge to set their Spirit free would first be Judged before being released to make sense for if it is possible and accomplished beforehand, those or the Almighty could intervene to prevent the dark side from contaminating the genome of life..

Bullshit. If we were born with faith we would all worship the same thing.

 

[NoNukes]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious 'people just go through the motions

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious' people just go through the motions and are not spiritual. Some non believers are not spiritual either.

You aren't exactly making a case for the intellectual foundation of atheism here.

The second half was a joke.

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone actually said that. But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is misquoting what Mohammed said. He didn't say that science would explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed. Rather, he said that science can explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%. Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon yet, I have no reason to believe that we won't. Now is this "faith"? I supposed. However, I would submit that this is an observation. Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone actually said that. But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is misquoting what Mohammed said. He didn't say that science would explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed. Rather, he said that science can explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%. Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon yet, I have no reason to believe that we won't. Now is this "faith"? I supposed. However, I would submit that this is an observation. Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.

Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually. That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone actually said that. But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is misquoting what Mohammed said. He didn't say that science would explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed. Rather, he said that science can explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%. Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon yet, I have no reason to believe that we won't. Now is this "faith"? I supposed. However, I would submit that this is an observation. Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.

Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually. That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone actually said that. But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is misquoting what Mohammed said. He didn't say that science would explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed. Rather, he said that science can explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%. Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon yet, I have no reason to believe that we won't. Now is this "faith"? I supposed. However, I would submit that this is an observation. Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.

Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually. That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

 

[yiostheoy]

There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.

They are:

1 - Theism (God watches over me)

2 - Deism (God exists but is distant from me and I am on my own)

3 - Atheism (there is no God)

4 - Agnosticism (I don't know if there is a God or not -- show me a sign)

5 - Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)

Each of these is a belief system of some sort.

Modern Catholicism is theistic science. The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.

I can't speak for other religions.

Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative. This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.

This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.

.

This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

... directed faith particularly does not exclude the possibility for all others and is only a stepping stone, holding pattern to accomplish the task of realizing the correct answer.

faith is what everyone is born with, the answers are for those that accomplish the goals in life to advance and become a part of the Everlasting.

from Antiquity, they believed who surmounted the Apex of Knowledge to set their Spirit free would first be Judged before being released to make sense for if it is possible and accomplished beforehand, those or the Almighty could intervene to prevent the dark side from contaminating the genome of life.

.

REALIZING the CORRECT answer would require either an interview with God face to face or else extinction at death.

Not too many people have claimed convincingly that they have seen God face to face. I have no doubt in Moses, or Peter, James, John, and Paul. Of course personally there is no proof. But if we choose to embrace one of these two particular faith systems then with the strength of our own faith we can gain strength and confidence thereby.

I suppose Muslims can derive the same strength of faith in Muhammad, although to me his story is just one big plagiarism. But to a Muslim conditioned from birth it would likely seem plausible.

If no one had any faith at all then everyone would simply be an agnostic and say "I do not know -- show me -- prove it".

Even atheists must have faith in their own atheism.

 

[yiostheoy]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

So I take it that you are 10,000 years old and an eye witness then?

Where did you find your fountain of youth ??

Just look at the history

We used to have a god for everything, water, sun, lightning, fertility etc etc

As we come to understand and explain the world we no longer need these gods

As of right now there are really only 2 big things we still don't know

How the universe began and what happens after we die

These 2 things are now the domain of the one god, the last god we will have

If and when we are ever able to fully understand these things we will no longer have a need for the last god

But as I said we may never understand the origin of the universe

History does not go back very far.

Sargon The Great is probably the earliest history that we have from his inscriptions in stone telling everyone how great he is and how much land he has conquered.

By then Gods were already in existence.

My avatar is Sargon's God.

 

[Skull Pilot]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't

So I take it that you are 10,000 years old and an eye witness then?

Where did you find your fountain of youth ??

Just look at the history

We used to have a god for everything, water, sun, lightning, fertility etc etc

As we come to understand and explain the world we no longer need these gods

As of right now there are really only 2 big things we still don't know

How the universe began and what happens after we die

These 2 things are now the domain of the one god, the last god we will have

If and when we are ever able to fully understand these things we will no longer have a need for the last god

But as I said we may never understand the origin of the universe

History does not go back very far.

Sargon The Great is probably the earliest history that we have from his inscriptions in stone telling everyone how great he is and how much land he has conquered.

By then Gods were already in existence.

My avatar is Sargon's God.

Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions