Religion is cultural, that seems obvious.
Hindu gods, for e.g. are unique and were only "revealed" to people within a particular regional/cultural divide.
Viking gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, the god of mount hockalugee, etc. All "discovered" by the people within a certain group. Greek and Roman very parallel, but apparently not the same?
Now if any gods were real, why wouldn't they be common to other peoples of the time, and why wouldn't there be multiple instances since the modern communication revolution of cultural exchanges leading to the realisation that different cultures were worshipping the same gods, who have the same values, rules, history, personality etc.
This seems to me to be an important point that I haven't seen addressed in religious discussion much, if at all.
How are the religious so comfortable with a god or gods that apparently created all of mankind, but then adopted one tribe, and chose to communicate with and support them exclusively. Why doesn't that set the alarm bells ringing?
Even the three major Abrahamic religions are divided specifically on messages through messiah/prophet apparently meant specifically for them, to be spread through contact or conquest, rather than by simply being convincing to all.
What is the religious response to this? Are there any merging religions who realised they were properly parallel to the point where it was clearly the same god?