Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
"Good point, however, current archeologic thought is somewhat limited to the 'great' civilizations in terms of theological history, and the Egyptian theology from the period you referred to is merely snippet in Egyptian history."
This is true. But even so, one is inclined to ask the question, "Is it not possible (or even probable) that monotheism preceded polytheistic theologies?" One big problem that I see with you position is that you beg the question of an evolutionary theology (that religious beliefs evolved or became more complex as human culture developed and became more complex). The alternative to that theory is that God, at some point (or points) in history, made Himself known to mankind and the pantheistic, polytheistic and animistic theologies to follow are perversions of the original monotheism that followed God's revelation of Himself.
"As we all know, more evidence is uncovered daily to cast doubt on all historical belief, which leads to the question, who or what did the ancient egyptians believe in before Aton?"
So is it your position then that a legal-historical case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because there may be an outside chance that convincing evidence will be contradicted? You weren't, by any chance, an O.J. Simpson juror, were you?
"As I mentioned before, the historical evidence cited focuses on but a few civilizations, mainly those with some type of written word."
There is also Teshup who appeared in varient forms as one great deity amongst early Syrian and Canaanite cultures.
Also, it cannot be shown that polytheistic religions naturally become less complicated, moving toward monotheism. Greco-Roman deities, Hinduism and Shintoism are all good historical examples that contradict the evolutionary religious assertion.
"What about northern Europe? Celtic beliefs, Nordic beliefs, etc?"
What about them? If I am going to make a decision, I am going to make it based on the best evidence I can locate. The northern Europeans were still plowing with sticks when the Egyptians were mastering complicated math and developing an advanced understanding of human physiology. I think posing arguments of silence is a weak move, btw. I know you can do better than that!
"Science cannot tell us which civilization existed first - if there was a first - from the northern areas to the mediterrainian area, and we know that the concept of one God in the northern european area of the world was a direct result of Judeo-Christian influence."
Science does suggest that civilization arose from one of two places ... Africa or the Middle East. And I agree ... the medieval and modern European tendency toward monotheism is a direct result of Christianity.
"The idea of a One God type of belief is only recent in the evolution of language, as evidenced by the icons and concepts passed through the generations and still presented in today's everyday speech."
Or perhaps the perversion of an original monotheism has been taking place for so long that those perversions have found their ways into today's everyday speech.
"In fact, if one wanted to make the argument, one could say that even christianity has trouble grappling with the idea of omnipotence - hence The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost."
I am confused by what you are trying to say here. The doctrine of the Trinity carefully and emphatically maintains that there is only one God. What confuses people is their inability to understand (with good reason) how a singular Being can have a plural nature. A quick analogy:
Theoretical physicists note that subatomic entities are found to have both wave properties (W), particle properties (P) and quantum properties (h). Even though these characteristics are often incompatible (particles don't diffract, waves do, for example), physicist "explain" or "model" an electron as PWh in order to give the proper weight to all of the relevant data.
Theologians are doing much the same thing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Theologians are not asking you to understand how something can be a singular and plural simulteniously ... they are offering an "explanation" or a "model" that gives proper weight to all of the relevant data (in the case of the Christian theologian, that relevant data being the Old and New Testament Canons).
This is a fun debate, JP. Do me a favor and elbow the guy beside you ... he's snoring too loud ... I'm getting distracted.