That depends entirely on how you approach the question.In regard to the first sentence: We can't include that in our definition because that presumes God's existence. If we include in our definition, "God is an object of human worship," then the conclusion of God's existence is imbedded in the definition. The definition then is reduced to a statement of belief, without rational foundation.
One way of phrasing that requirement would be "if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship". The logical corollary to this "if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God". This allows us to exclude from our search for God all the things that are not objects of human worship, since we can be sure that they're not God.
What I meant is that for God to exist, there must also exist some group of people who have (or had) real knowledge of God. This means that to determine whether there is a God or not, we don't have to scour the entire universe for evidence; we only have to evaluate the claims of each religion through human history to see if they're derived from real knowledge.In regard to the 2nd sent: No, what it implies is that a portion of humanity has had a belief in "God" entities since the dawn of recorded history, and most probably, far earlier. No doubt, millions of people believed they had "real knowledge" of Zeus and Pan, but that knowledge has been reduced to myth and legend for most rational thinking people of today.
Of course, this is still a huge task, but it's many times easier than looking through the entire universe for God.