The two main types of gods humans follow are 1) discrete entities of "magical" power such as in polytheist traditions that may or may not embody forces of nature; and 2) a "thing" so massive and all-encompassing in reach, that it can be better explained as an illusion of our anthropic frame of perception, rather than the apparent object we make it out to be.
The former is at least falsifiable, even if it's true that we've never encountered it. The latter type is more in line with monotheism.

Theological explanations for the apparently contradictory or aloof actions of a monotheistic god often cite their utter lack of obligation to the creations they love, despite their seemingly random willingness to selectively help certain loyal followers in times of need. This is a sharp departure from the initiative motive many people have for following a monotheistic faith, being the promise of at least some sort of assistance in either this life or the next in exchange for loyalty to the deity; once this aspect of equivalent exchange goes away, you're left with nothing but "following god for God's sake," which becomes silly descriptive nihilism. Those who were bound to worship God for its own sake will end up worshiping, and reaping the due reward, no matter what, and those who were bound not to, never can and never will with the same righteous motivations, and will never be duly rewarded no matter how hard they fake it.
Not only does this destroy the monotheistic carrot of God's unwavering love or eternal afterlife, it also reduces your theology back to the same hard determinism you'd get from Reductive Physicalism, and all the theological framework is now fluff that serves no apparent purpose.


To the apparent statistical improbability of something so final and infinite having such an overstated interest in something as minuscule in its creations of Humanity - or alternately, the unlikelihood of the grand creator operating on assumptions that otherwise seem uniquely anthropic - there's the Iranaean Theodicy, the idea that a creator's intent for creating us in an imperfect world is for it to serve as a testing ground for our virtue. One could take this a step further and infer that any god that needs a testing ground to complete his own creations is not "omnipotent" in the sense of having all possible power, but may be "quasi-omnipotent" by simply being the most powerful entity in existence. This description is closer to the first type of god, the "powerful spirit," rather than a god of the infinite.
What's peculiar about this perspective is that when moral determinism is applied, the choices a person makes given the circumstances of making them hinge on traits of moral virtue innate to themselves; we all know we have an easier time making "better" choices when our strength is up and our wits about us, so the formula for one's moral merit is some function of their mental fortitude - their strength. Their power to resist temptation.
More powerful beings are more moral, and will be judged more favorably in the end. Might makes Right - therefore, the selection of the Righteous from Unrighteous is the selection of the Strong from the weak.
But we already have this in the absence of monotheistic god, in the form of Natural Selection. God's behavior matches the uncaring tides of Nature, making him redundant.

The questions raised by theology are grimly answered by an entirely different framework. The only thing theology leaves us with is the useless artifact of anthropomorphizing nature, in the form of "god."

And that is its gravest mistake. Projecting a human face into the night sky that tried to smother us in our crib across the strange aeons when we were coming of age.

"Love" god? How many of you were born mighty? Our angry mother tried to abort us. Several times. And fools still aspire to live "in accordance with her" instead of finally giving her the good arm-twisting she deserves.
If God exists, you don't want to meet him. We are no children of his. If he were in you, you'd be walking to him already, because nothing would be more desirable. And if you don't have him in you now, you never did and never will.