What I grapple with here is the extent to which these particular variables play an important role in assessing why we either do or do not believe in God; and, if we do, why we believe in one particular God rather than another; and, if one rather than another, the existential implications of this pertaining to the behaviors that we choose; and, if one rather than another, the manner in which we connect the dots between those behaviors on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side.
In other words, the parts that you basically refuse to explore substantively at all.
Or so it seems to me.
And, then: the extent to which history, culture and personal experiences inform our frame of mind here.
And, finally: the extent to which philosophers and theologians are then able to take that into account in offering assessments that others can react to as more or less rational.
Yet scientific studies show that young children show an interest and belief in god even when they have never been exposed to ideas about god.
I suspect this: that, sooner or later, most of us will reach a point in our life when we begin to ponder why anything exists at all; and why it exists as it does and not in some other way; and what our fate might possibly be after we now longer exists on this side of the grave at all.
Sure, God is one possible explanation.
As for a “concept of fairness”, yes, we do seem to be hard-wired by the evolution of life on earth to take that into account in our interactions with others.
All I am suggesting is that with respect to behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments, we explore that concept existentially as it pertains to what may or may not be “fair” with regard to issues like abortion or capital punishment or animal rights or social and economic justice.
As this either does or does not relate to our views on God and religion.
Again, you choose the issue and we can explore this more in depth.