I love it!!! Great questions, Brian. I like the word "God" for its poetic capabilities: it evokes many images and feelings for me. So it's like poetry, and what is poetry? It's not really narrative fiction, but it's certainly not fact. So it's putting something into words that's akin to things felt.

Enough introduction: I'll settle for using the word Cosmos or cosmos to describe all that is and will be; sometimes I affectionately refer to it as mother nature, but that is anthropomorphic, I know...

Using our best (so far) processes of acquiring information and knowledge we have deduced that the universe has over 13 billion years of existence. Compared to human intelligence (the intelligence humans project through their conscious interaction but not the intelligence operating their life mechanisms), the intelligence manifest in the operation of the universe is unimaginably advanced. However, humans, having designated themselves as beings, have been attempting to conceive of another being - GOD - but with capacities greater than those witnessed in the universe. Why?

Why, when we admit the existence and operation of the universe long before human (or any terrestrial beings) existence?
Why, when we refuse to conclusively accept the logical possibility of highly intelligent life outside our planet's perimeters?
Why, when we inevitably strip God off of every vestige that makes us 'beings'?
Why, when the reality of our existence does not alter no matter the augmentation of the narrative? — BrianW

Paragraph 1 question: Possible reasons could be a desire to understand our circumstance, and a fear of the dark. Its not a one-size-fits-all situation. Unfortunately, the word God does not actually explain anything.

I take it the "when" in the subsequent four questions are to qualify the first question.

Question 2. The Universe's age does not affect the existence or non-existence of the God concept.

Question 3. I know a lot of people who acknowledge this possibility. What they do not factor into their calculation is "irony."

Question 4. Inevitably strip God? When we attempt to conceive God? (Q1)

Question 5. The static fact of our reality, does not, in my view, change anything about possible answers to Q1.

The way you frame your questions is extremely convoluted, to the point that I am not sure I understand the original premise.

The way you frame your questions is extremely convoluted, to the point that I am not sure I understand the original premise. — Drazjan

They are kinda synthesis between open and leading questions, the idea is not to have an exact answer but a thought process into possibilities and probabilities. The idea is to look into the varied thought processes that have taken place over millennia of human cultures and practices. The premise is, explain God.

Why, when we admit the existence and operation of the universe long before human (or any terrestrial beings) existence? — BrianW

Those who do admit that. Well, you'll need to tease out a complete argument for why this means there wouldn't be a god. I mean, what's time to a God? Not presuming i know the answer to that, by the way.

Why, when we refuse to conclusively accept the logical possibility of highly intelligent life outside our planet's perimeters? — BrianW

I am not sure we refuse to do that. Some of we do, but many of we don't.

Why, when we inevitably strip God off of every vestige that makes us 'beings'? — BrianW

I'd need to see the reasons why this make it odd that we, those of we who do, believe in God. And many have or had God or gods wihg many vestiges of human nature?

Why, when the reality of our existence does not alter no matter the augmentation of the narrative? — BrianW

I am not sure what this means, but just guessing here at the meaning....how would we know it hasn't altered?

On the basis that language is a defining characteristic of humans, it can be argued that all words, including 'God', 'reality' and 'knowlege' are by definition anthropocentric. A secondary shift to 'anthropomorphism' does not seem surprising.

This is a veritable paradox

AI will best us at everything
Yet it will be surely born of nothing
By the dextrous hands of man
who convinced himself he can
what of God then?
Not if but when?
Will he become a child?
we're no more beasts, wild
We copy onto machine
exactly what in the mirror seen
this is a tune which
all creators, bewitch

:joke:

Using our best (so far) processes of acquiring information and knowledge we have deduced that the universe has over 13 billion years of existence. Compared to human intelligence (the intelligence humans project through their conscious interaction but not the intelligence operating their life mechanisms), the intelligence manifest in the operation of the universe is unimaginably advanced. However, humans, having designated themselves as beings, have been attempting to conceive of another being - GOD - but with capacities greater than those witnessed in the universe. Why? — BrianW

Early humans - in developing a cognitive awareness of value in relation to observing, sensing and feeling as well as remembering and thinking about experiences of the environment (past, present and future) - soon recognised that there was a hierarchy of value for the organism (the ‘self’) that is distinct from the rest of the environment, as ‘other’. What the self needs to sustain its life mechanisms, the ‘other’ may also need for something else, bringing conflict. Humans learned to distinguish between different ‘others’ in the world, and attributed hierarchies of value to each ‘other’ in relation to the self. Some, they discovered, were larger, stronger, more intelligent than themselves. If they attack they might be killed, if they hide then they starve, but if they connect and collaborate, then perhaps they can learn something...

They also recognised an overarching hierarchy of value in the environment that portrays the self as vastly inferior: smaller, weaker, more temporary, etc. With courage, they began to seek out and attempt to understand this superior sense of ‘other’ that exists in the world, yet has no form. What they have called ‘GOD’ is a personification of this ‘other’ intelligent observer - one that sees humans as smaller, weaker, more temporary and less knowledgeable. They imagined themselves in a relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing creator ‘being’, and through this relationship they began to learn about the world, to extend information systems beyond their own lifetimes, and get a sense of the universe beyond their own physical existence.

But as much as we hope for a ‘being’ that fulfills this role, there isn’t one. Not really. It isn’t the existence of a being, at any rate - it’s the relationship that matters. As long as we forge a relationship with what we don’t understand about the universe and existence - as long as we strive to be aware, to connect and to collaborate - then I think there is hope for us.

It’s when we convince ourselves that we know enough, that we have reached our potential or that what we don’t understand is not worth exploring, or needs to be destroyed, shut out, dismissed, ignored, etc - that’s when I think we’re in trouble...

The idea is to look into the varied thought processes that have taken place over millennia of human cultures and practices. The premise is, explain God. — BrianW

Explain God. You don't ask for much, do you?

There is a problem right off. It is impossible to really know what anyone else means by God. Or anything that cannot be detected. Sure, you can agree with someone, but that does not mean you are talking about the same thing. Creator of the Cosmos? That question is a human construct expressed in English and doesn't carry any description. So, to discuss God, one must first accept some kind of meaning already applied, even before you have a meaning. It just goes around and around in circles. The only thing one can do is make a prediction, or as in the case of the major religions, talk about faith or belief, and that is not going to help except to provide a sense of belonging for those who feel vulnerable. With the God of Abraham, they don't seem to care, other than to provide a father figure for grown-ups.