Can you not follow the discussion between A and B? Eventually, through one-up-manship, one reaches a concept that is beyond bettering. It speaks nothing of the reality of the situation, but provides a logical path by which that concept could arise. If you see a pattern to the cycle of rain, and the only patterns you generally see are those made by beings then the pattern of the rain cycle that you see would seem to be due to a being. This being would have to be powerful, as it controls the rain. Other beings might then be thought to control other things (the sun, the moon, the oceans etc). But we don't see these beings; therefore the beings must be invisible. These powerful invisible beings are what could originally be taken to be gods. Nothing all that new here, just a matter of scale. In the above conversation between A and B there is also no new concept that is not simply an extrapolation. The end result might be something very different from the starting point, but each step is simply an extrapolation. But the entire process says nothing about reality, only about what is thought to be reality.