In my writings I have indeed called persons, as opposed to animals, godlike. I see this Luciferian ethos as implicit in our historic, civilizational attempt to reshape the natural environment, to humanize it and make it conform to our interests with technological ingenuity. Just as science fiction seems to predict the future but actually reflects the present, religious myths have always projected our nature onto natural forces. The gods of religion have always been just us, just the human royals with their hubristic Promethean intentions.
I agree, though, that some patterns are only subjective or illusory, including religious and mystical personifications. The difference between animality and personhood, though, seems to me real and important enough.
I think you misunderstood my point about the atheistic search for a complete explanation of everything. I'm not talking about the falsification of theism. I'm saying that scientists are looking for a final theory of everything, and that theory would be methodologically naturalistic and therefore atheistic. But any such theory would be in danger of implicitly positing a godlike entity to justify calling a stop to the explanatory endeavour. Theists would be able to identify the quantum foam or Big Bang singularity, for example, with a divine absolute ground of being or mystical God.