All those different names for water do not mean that all those people had a totally different idea in their minds of what water is. The Tuaregs have something like 14 different words for water because they live in the desert, and water is extremely important to them. So they define it by how they find it. Island cultures have different names for water based in it's behavior as a large body, like the sea, because they travel on the surface of those large bodies of water. Different words for it, different experiences of it, and yet it's all still water. The same water that you and I experience, in our own way and by our own labels. So, are there really all these different waters? Or are they really just different ways that we humans experience water, and convey their experiences to others? The thing to understand, here, is that H2O is just a molecular formulation. It needs no names or stories from us to exist. The names and stories are the result of how we humans interact with and understand it. You're trying to use the differences in the ways we humans experience and understand what we experience to claim that what they experience somehow isn't "real". And that's just nonsensically biased. Humans have experienced something, universally, and they've all conceptualized it in their own respective ways, just as we do with everything we experience. I'm sorry that you're such an anomaly in this, and that you have not had this universal experience, or that you have chosen to ignore/reject it, or whatever. But that doesn't change the facts. And the facts are that the vast majority of humans across time, place, and many cultures have all experienced something they all labelled and contextualize in their own unique ways. And in our culture, we call it "God".
Humans are born with no way of comprehending love. The idea had to be taught to us so that when we experienced it, we could identify that experience. But we would have experienced it, regardless, as we all do, in some form or other. So all the culture does for us it give us a conceptual box to put our experiences in, and can use to convey them to others. This is not a sign of some sort of deceit. It's just how shared information creates a context for shared experiences.
The fact that people amend the information set over time and with more experience is hardly indicative of anything sinister. I'm quite sure that most of us have amended our conception of love throughout our lives. This doesn't mean that love is not "real", or that it is some sinister cultural infection. It's a complex human experience, like many others. It is experienced both universally, AND uniquely. Just as is "God".
