According to the analyzed sources, the arguments for and against the existence of Roman gods in historical beliefs are quite diverse and reflect society’s complex attitude toward its own traditions and rituals.
Respect or veneration for a figure, even if it is associated with falsehood, may be justified not by literally acknowledging its truth, but by its symbolic function and communicative role. That is, if the figure is used as a sign reflecting certain values, ideas, or an ideological position, then the respect shown towards it can serve as a means of conveying a subjective, often ritual, meaning.
Based on the criteria described in the source (see source_file: 220_1098.txt), the determination of whether a group consists of human beings is not limited to their outward resemblance, but depends on a set of spiritual and cultural characteristics. In one of the excerpts it is explained that upon encountering the indigenous peoples of America, the Spanish, by asking questions about their faith and attitude towards the afterlife, came to the conclusion that the presence of such beliefs signifies human nature:
Philosophy considers the divine-human nature of man as the foundation through which he understands and actualizes the highest meaning of his existence, including his comprehension of good. From this perspective, man is inherently imperfect and in need of an inner transformation, which is achieved through a connection with the divine principle. It is precisely this connection that allows him to perceive goodness as an integral part of his being.
Any verbal or figurative designation of God turns out to be approximate precisely because human modes of expression—language and images—are confined by finite, defined concepts and forms. A person is capable of naming God, attributing names to Him much as he names himself, that is, by projecting his own nature onto the divine. Thus, any naming of God carries an anthropomorphic character, reflecting only a part of His true essence, which remains transcendent, ineffable, and unnameable. This emphasizes that literal methods of describing the divine cannot encompass the infinity and boundlessness of God, as language can convey only that which is limited by the confines of form, measure, and the definitions of human experience.