THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

A   R   T   I  C   L   E


TITLE:                                              CHRISTMAS AND "ATHEISM"




As you saw in the previous section, "Atheism" is actually a propaganda project of the Jesuits, begun in Florence, Italy as a counter-reform measure against the effect of Girolamo Savanarola.  And as you saw also, "Latin Theology" is actually built on the foundation of the "definition of God" which is essentially "Atheistic" (meaning "existence" is not included as an "attribute" of it's definition of God).  And you saw that even "counter-reformation" evangelicals, openly stated "the existence of God would be the worst thing that could ever happen to us". (That is because their "Latin" definition of God, does not include "existence")

So now you can see why the Vatican and it's allies, have a great deal to personally "gain", from the promotion of "Atheism" in western culture.  It diminishes "religious competition". It lays the ground work for "Latin theology". And it leads inevitably to acceptance of Rome's Pontifex Maximus as "supreme authority" ("God" on earth).

It had long been charged by "Protestants" that there was more going on between "Marxist-revolutions" and the Vatican's Jesuits, than the public was aware, but in an age when "the red scare" was generating hysteria over every shadow, such critiques and analysis, were simply lost in the sea of noise and confusion. But it turns out their "expose's" were more than simply more paranoia.  And this relationship was underscored when Ronald Reagan personally asked the Vatican to end "communism". (And shortly thereafter, almost to order, the "Soviet-Union" collapsed) And in the article in Time magazine, the Vatican official openly bragged, it was "nothing", because they had been doing that kind of thing for 2000 years.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Vatican, most world rulers, are keenly aware of the fact, it is the wealthiest and most powerful institution on earth.  And not much goes on in the world, without ultimately, permission from this institution in some way or form.  If it really does not want you to exist anymore, you will not.  And these facts bring us to the subject of "Atheism".

"Atheism" as a Jesuit-Vatican propaganda form is not a "truth-movement". It may have some "truths" it occasionally advances, as any "movement" will, but it's "purpose" is not "truth". It is simply playing a predefined role which serves the purpose of the Vatican. It's leaders even meet with Vatican "officials" and have "dialogues".  And the "New Atheism" leaders are very careful to avoid direct attacks on "Roman Catholicism".  When they "debate theists" (it is more often than not, a Catholic Priest), which they have "chosen", and often times, it is actually the same "Priests" (over and over again).

There has been a tremendous amount of "misinformation" spread about "Atheism" as an ideology. And one of the things you will constantly see when you have discourses with "New Atheism" is that it is constantly attempting to change the meaning of words, as they are found in a dictionary.  This is an extremely odd behavior which becomes very apparent when such discussions are engaged.

Why the obsession with assigning words "definitions", that are not what they mean?  There are words that do mean what they want to say. Why not just use the words that already exist for those meanings? (The answer is, as both sides know, they do not have the same "propaganda value") Thus the demand for arbitrary definitions.

But a great deal of "theology" is about the actual "definition" of a word. It is a "linguistic" study. So if you wish to argue the "non-existence" of "God", then you have to engage "definitions" of "words", and those "definitions" have to be "objective definitions", not like a "mood-ring" that changes "colors" based on whatever "your in the mood" to see.

The way you know you are "right" or "wrong" about a propositional statement, is to examine the meaning of the "proposition", and match it with the "data" to see if it's "accurate", or not.

If you wish to have a "debate", but insist (in the debate), on defining words to mean whatever you're in the mood for them to arbitrarily mean, in the moment (often changing definitions mid-stream, to "fit" the momentary circumstance), then "language itself" becomes meaningless. So the "definition" of words, are actually where the "battle" is really taking place.  It's not over what is "true" or "false" (as that is actually known), it is over what our "words actually mean".(It is a "power-struggle")  As you will see below, the "existence of God" is actually fully known. It is "proven" by science, evidence and facts. It is neither "unknown" nor "unknowable".

But that is "precisely" the problem for "Atheism". So, it is seeking to use verbal "force" to regain the ground, it has legitimately "lost" (for good).  Thus, it is not a "truth-movement", but precisely it's opposite. It is now a "propaganda" movement. Intent on "re-defining" words, so that it can "become true" again.  But the "truth about Atheism" is that it is not "modern", it is not "scientific", and it is not "true".  And that is not a biased assertion, but the fact of the definitions of the words, themselves.  God's "existence" is (and has been) fully known, for a very long time. (And that is the problem, both for "Atheists" and "Latin theologians")  And that is precisely, what they are seeking to "put an end" to.



"Atheism" routinely calls "Theism" an "ignorant superstition" from the middle-ages. And it promotes itself as "scientific" and "modern" and based on "facts" and "data" and "evidence". 

These are all lovely words, and who could possibly disagree with any of them.  And it is very easy to throw these words at "counter-reformationist" "Christmas-Christians" who DO reject "science" and DO hate anything "modern" and DO ignore "facts" and could care less what the "data" is and DO stick their nose up at any "evidence" that does not "favor them".  They act this way about everything, but it is not "God's fault" they choose "ignorance" and "unrepentance", as a "way of life", in defiance of him.  That is "low-hanging fruit".  However, the claim that "Atheism" acts any different, in the face of "scientific facts" and "data" and "evidence",  is very misleading.  It acts no different on it's own behalf, than any "zealots", from any other religion.
And when it comes to "ignorant superstition", that too is not something that "Atheists"  alone are "free" from.  "Ignorant superstition" is something that can "afflict" anyone, regardless of their claimed beliefs, including "Atheists" as well.
But honestly, between the two belief systems of "Atheism" and New Testament Christianity, the truth is, "Atheism" would be more accurately described as the "ignorant superstition" from the middle-ages.  Atheism is actually the older of the two belief systems. And technically, it's revival, is traced directly and specifically to the "middle-ages", where at one point, it was in danger of complete extinction from the face of the earth, save for the work of the Vatican itself, and later the Jesuits, in promoting as a propaganda tool.

(Ironically, entities which "Atheists" themselves, consider to be "Christian") Despite the fact neither actually are.  Ironically, in their preference of consideration of the Vatican and the Jesuits to be "Christian", it is to "Christians" (literally directly from the "middle-ages") that "Atheists" have to thank for "preserving" their belief.

But beyond these very relevant historical facts, that actually do frame "Atheism" historically, in exactly the very same contexts as "Christianity", including their references to the "middle-ages", or "primitive society", or "pre-scientific cosmology", or whatever diminutive derogatory phrase they wish to use, they also do not escape the "dictionary definition" of "superstition" either.

 "Atheism" meets the criteria of all three "definitions" of the word, "superstitious", given in the "dictionary of the English language".

The 3 definitions listed in Webster's, are (1) a "belief" resulting from "ignorance", trust in "chance", or a false conception of causation.

That certainly applies. "Atheism" is the "ignorance of God", "trust in chance" and a "belief in false causation", because it advocates the belief there is no "causation". All things "just happened" on their own, for no reason. (There is no "cause", that "caused them")

The second definition is, "an irrational abject attitude or mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God".  That second definition is certainly true. "Abject" means "negative" or "demeaning" or "abasing".

And the third and possibly the most critical definition is (definition #2), "a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary". 

That fits "Atheism" (as an "idea") to a "T". (Maintaining a "notion" despite evidence to the contrary"). No one is more openly guilty of that, than leaders of "new atheism" who openly brag about their commitment to "Atheism" as a form of "superstition" , as a point of fact.

"New Atheist" leaders such as Hitchens and Dawkins, will loudly demand "evidence", but when put on the "spot" about it, will quickly declare "no evidence could ever convince them" (even if something appeared in their bedroom in the middle of the night, and spoke to them directly), or they saw a "burning bush", etc. (That is precisely what the meaning of "definition #2") actually is.  At that point, their "Atheism" is "laid bare" as nothing more than a "superstition". (Which as you saw earlier, even came directly from the middle-ages)

How can


if not even one of them

contains  the  possibility

of "God" ?
Not so "infinite", huh ?

So "new Atheism" is not nearly as "scientific" and "factual" and "evidence based" as it claims it is, because it doesn't even accept the basic premise necessary to all science, of "causation". "Atheism" (in truth) is actually the "medieval superstition" and many of these derogatory descriptions, are actually "projection".  And "Atheism" definitely has an "irrational abject attitude of mind" toward "nature", the "supernatural" and "God".

The archaic use of the word "Atheism", used to refer to "wickedness". (In many cases, though not all certainly, it still does)  But as you are about to see, the claim that there is "no scientific evidence" for "the existence of God", (often repeated by "Atheists", "ad nauseum") is a "propaganda" slogan. It is not a truthful statement. It is nothing short of a bold-faced "lie". (Which if said often enough, people come to "believe", despite it's "error". Thus it's frequent, dogmatic and over-used "repetition")



It is always rather comical theatrics to watch the "new atheist" debate the Roman Catholic priest, and the "new atheist" will loudly and proudly declare "there IS NO scientific evidence for the EXISTENCE OF GOD!"  And the Catholic Priest will very sanctimoniously nod his head, and say;"Well, that is true but blah, blah, blah, "faith".  And everyone in the audience will say to themselves, "wow", there really is something to this "atheism" thing.

The problem however, is that what you just saw, was the equivalent of Japanese Kibuki Theater. You have two actors, who already "believe" the same thing. And want that "belief" promoted in western culture. That is why they "agree", and then move on. These "debates" are the Vatican's version of WWF "professional wrestling".  It's "fake". Not all of it as in every little detail or moment, to be sure, but the "genre" itself, is an illusion.

The truth is,  all "scientific evidence" which is "scientific evidence", is "scientific evidence" that demonstrates "God exists". Because it all depends on what you are "defining" as "God". (The "evidence", if it is such, is the same for everybody) Here is what they are not telling their audiences.

If you "define God" according to "Latin Theology" (in which "existence" is not an "attribute" of God to begin with), then of course there is "no scientific evidence" that "God exists" (how could there be? He doesn't "exist"). How could you have "proof" that "non-existence, exists"? And thus why, when you hear this "declaration" by the "new atheist", and see the priest "agree" and then "sanctimoniously" bring up the word "faith",  you have just watched a theological version of WWF wrestling.

The "Biblical definition" of  "God" is not the same thing, as the definition of "God" from "Latin Theology".  And that very important distinction is never made, when you see these "staged debates" on TV.

And when you are discussing the topic of "God", it is a little disingenuous to use a definition of  "God" from "Latin theology" (that says "existence" is not an "attribute" of "God"), to ridicule the idea of "God" in the Bible, as "non-existent", especially when "God" as defined in the Scriptures, certainly does "exist" and does have "existence" as one of it's "attributes".  (Meaning also, that "existence", is actually really truly known in "physics", and there is "scientific evidence" of it's "presence", in the universe) that the "actors on the stage" are intentionally "NOT talking about".

So that "clarifies" what is meant by "existence", and why there would be "no evidence" for "existence", if you are using a definition of God that intentionally doesn't include "existence" to begin with.

But if you do have a definition of "God" that DOES include "existence", then there certainly will be "evidence" for that "existence". (As there actually really is)  And the claim "there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God", then, becomes a false and misleading claim. (Which it is)
The next "trick" of deception in that phrase, is the word "scientific".  "Scientific" and "evidence" are two different words. There is definitely "evidence" which is "scientific" for the "existence of God". But, when you combine the two words, "scientific" and "evidence", into the phrase "scientific evidence", you get a third definition which can range from a very general meaning that refers to "evidence which is from science" (which there most certainly is), to a very specialized meaning, within a "scientific profession", referring to their specialized "scientific" industry, which meets all the processes and procedural regulations of their "science". (Such as in "drug trials")  You hear all the time, CDC speakers such as Anthony Faucci say, there is "no scientific evidence", for a particular drug.  If the phrase "there is no scientific evidence", as in "there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God" is being used in this sense, then and only then, would that statement qualify as a "true statement". (But that is no reflection on the question of "God's existence", anymore than it would be on your own)  And it would be rather comical that such a statement would be made (in that sense).  Here is why...

Most people (who are not familiar with "science") hear it spoken of in "generalities", but "real science" doesn't really function that way.  What constitutes "scientific" in "Mexico" would not be considered "scientific" in the "EU" or "France".  Definitions of  what is "scientific" come from local government "regulations" of the specific "scientific" industry, to which the "science" is applied. What can be "approved" as "scientific" in "Libya" is not necessarily "scientific" in "London" (in fact, it might "snobbishly" even be called "junk science").

In these real-world, "scientific processes", you cannot claim there is "scientific evidence" for anything that has not been the subject of a "scientific experiment" or "trial". And in order to have a "scientific trial" you have to have a "product" or a "procedure" or an "hypothesis" that a "trial" is designed for, and the research is paid for, in order to conduct. Without that process, there is "technically" no "scientific evidence" for anything. Not even that "Dawkins" or "Hitchens" "exist", as well. (Despite the fact they do)

If it has not been the "subject" of a "scientific trial", then there is no "scientific evidence" from it, (one way or another) to address it. But the absence of  data cannot "speak" to something one way or another. It's absent. That would include your own personal existence. In other words, in this sense, there is "no scientific evidence" that you exist either. (But you do). It's not the "subject" of a "scientific trial". 

"Scientific evidence" (in this very strict specialized sense) is derived from a "scientific trial" (thus the use of the terminology). No "trial", no "evidence" (and it means "nothing" one way or another). It neither validates, nor invalidates, anything.

So you see why the "definitions" of words are really important in this debate. And the more people use obfuscation to "dodge" the truth, the more you should see, they are engaging in dishonest "evasion" tactics, and probably so, for a good reason. That is what you do when you are "dishonest", and have no where else to go.

But there is "plenty" of "evidence" concerning the "existence of God" that is "scientific". In fact, there is more "evidence" that is "scientific" for the existence of God, than there is for the existence of you. There may be "evidence" that you "exist", but it is not "scientific". (Because you have not been the object of "scientific" inquiry, and the universe has)  Thus while there has been the production of a tremendous amount of "evidence" that is "scientific", concerning the existence of God.  There is "none" for you. (Does that mean you do not "exist"?)

It is a "very dishonest" claim being made by "new atheist" stage celebrities, and that the same "debate stage priests" are acquiescing to on purpose (like WWF wrestlers) , because it advances their "Latin Theology".  (It is in reality, a public manipulation "scam")


"New atheists" have also been frequently crusading the internet with some of the most outrageous claims concerning "science" one can imagine, including that "science" is "infallible".  Stating also that such is the case (even when it is wrong) because it is "always self-correcting" (among a lot of other very "superstitious" nonsense).  "Science" is a wonderful thing. It was prized and promoted by the Reformation. Some "Reformers" were even "scientists" themselves. But when "science" is distorted into something unrecognizable for the sake of "ideologies", it becomes no more helpful, than all the other things that have suffered the same abuse. It performs and behaves no better, than the world's worst religions, as both Atheist China and the USSR amply illustrated.
"Fundamentalists" who were "raised" in a "theology" under the "Latin" definition of God, without their knowledge, (a "counter-reformation" doctrine of the "non-existence of God") and who finally realized the logical conclusion of that mess, and became "new atheists", ...often in their new found zeal push this ridiculous claim, exchanging one previous "Catholic" superstition, for another "Atheist" superstition. (Yet still floating around, in the same realm of unrealistic "superstition" actually even coming from the very same "source" in history). 

The "Two Types" of "Science"

Not all "science" is the same. This is understood among "scientists" themselves. Some types of "science", are called "hard science" because they deal with "hard numbers" and "hard data" and what they "deal with" is very concrete and "objective" (real). There is very little room, for personal "speculation" and theoretical "conjecture".

And there are some "sciences" which are called "soft-sciences" where opinions, conjectures, speculations, working theories, models, etc., play a major role in the "science", such as "psychology" or "theoretical physics" or "cosmology". (It is still called "science", but the consequences for error, are much different between the two)

When someone is just "flat wrong" in a "soft-science" it may have no consequence at all, because the "science" is "inconsequential". And when it is wrong, it may not be realized that IT IS wrong for decades,
...and no one is really ever getting "sued" over the consequences of the falsehood. (Because sometimes there are none, except in the realm of "ideas" and "theories").  "Soft-sciences" are essentially "subjective".  If you have an advanced degree and a platform, you can say whatever you wish, within the industry's acceptable perimeters and everyone will "yawn", and then "applaud". 
But in "hard science", such is not the case. "Hard science" is "objective". It is the "most" "scientific", of the two types of science.  If you want to talk about "real science", there is not much more "real" of a "science", than "chemistry". The demands are much greater. The "discipline" required is much stricter. And the consequences of either falsehood or error,  are direct and much deadlier. When there is a "deception" or a "falsehood" in "hard science", people often die. That is the difference between "theoretical physics" and "pharmacology" or "medicine".  The "science" of Pharmacology deals directly with chemical "molecules".  The calculations are concrete, not "speculative". When there is a mistake, people die. In fact, "drug science" is the most regulated form of "hard science" and "real science" on the planet. It doesn't get much more "objective" in "science", as a "science", than "drug science".

"New atheists" like religious zealots, do not understand the difference between "supposed to be" and "is". "Ministers" are "supposed to be" godly. "Judges" are "supposed to be" impartial.  "Defendants" are "supposed to be" innocent until proven guilty. "Mechanics" are "supposed to" only fix what's broke on your car. The Maytag repairman is not "supposed" to have anything to do.  And.. "Science" is "supposed to be" "self-correcting", but like all the other things in life, ...things are never what they are "supposed to be".

In fact, "science" doesn't "correct itself" "at all" in any way, shape or form, in many instances. Sometimes, it is "law" which "corrects" "science". Usually in the form of a "class action" lawsuit. (Then the "truth" "science" was being used to "hide", "hits the fan"), and it "all comes out" (to the tune of millions of dollars).

And the people who are put in "charge" of actually "correcting", what "science did" (that killed people), are a jury of "non-scientist" citizens, i.e., "teachers" "secretaries" "house-wives" "store-clerks" and "hotel managers", etc., that issue a "verdict". And a judge who passes a "fine" or a "sentence".  That is how a mammoth amount of "science" gets forcibly "corrected" (every day of the week). Even though that is not "supposed to happen".

In fact this happens so frequently, that lawyers have created a "multi-billion" (say that again, a "multi-billion") dollar industry doing nothing but "exposing" errors, flaws, false claims, false conclusions, misleading statements, deceptions, missed and intentionally hidden facts, in, through and around "science". And have been doing precisely that, for decades (every business day of the week). It is a "routine day" in courts all over America.

And it was the work of a "class action lawsuit" and an attorney, that "corrected" the "science".  And until that "class action lawsuit" was filed and won, "science" did absolutely nothing, to "correct" itself. (Thus why there came "billions" of dollars in "lawsuit") And it was "All real".

BTW, there is no "scientific evidence" for the existence of "law". (Despite the fact, it can be more "true" than "science")  That is why "civilization" has developed multiple "methods" for "verification" of "truth".   (And they should all be used and appreciated)



As you have seen in the above examples, when "Atheists" "throw out" accusations, it is very important to first find the "definitions" of those terms, because "impressionism" is not an "epistemology", it is a genre of "art", not "science".  And often these "sweeping generalities" are issued in a direct contradiction of the meaning of the actual words being used, themselves, and even in spite of  the relevant facts, on the topic.  In setting the bar low, in this manner, "new atheism" becomes an "appeal" to "ignorance" and emotional bias. (Not "logic", "facts", "intelligence", "education" or "reason") Just "ignorance" and "emotional bias".

You will find this happening in their denunciations of "the supernatural", as well. It is simply a concrete "scientific fact" that the "supernatural" exists. (It is really not "debatable")

That is, when you actually bother to "look up" the definition of the term. The "primary definition" of the word, "Supernatural" is defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".  The word "supernatural" is made up of two words;"Super"+"natural".  "Supernatural" refers to "Super+nature" (meaning nature beyond the senses).  When the term was coined, there was no such knowledge of, or instruments capable of measuring "invisible things", such as "telescopes","microscopes","radio-waves","light-spectrums", etc. All of these instruments allow us to study, what in the past, would have been clearly understood as "the super+natural" (the "invisible world") beyond the "visible observable universe".  That IS the "super+natural" by definition.  Quantum physics is the study of the "super+nature" of the universe (so it definitely exists)  And modern science also documented (1) there are other "dimensions" of reality (2) a majority of our current universe is made up almost entirely of "dark matter" and "dark energy", meaning cosmic "structure" that is neither "visible" nor "matter".  Matter and energy that are entirely "super+nature" (i.e., supernatural) in it's essence.

In view of the "discoveries" of "modern science", "Atheism" is a very antiquated, medieval and simplistic way of viewing the universe, that should be "abandoned". It is in reality, very much guilty of being itself, the "ignorant medieval superstition" it accuses everyone else of being.  Since according to the claims of "Atheists" themselves, the "non-existence" of the "Supernatural" "proves" the "non-existence of God".  Then it would also be true by necessity, in the inverse, that the "existence" of the "supernatural", affirms the "existence of God". (And, which, it actually does). "super+nature" exists and is real (and is fully  confirmed by modern "science"). But the "Atheist" is forced into a "fight" over "semantics", because the "science" itself, has actually left them no "choice". "Atheism" historically, has always maintained 1 dimensional "materialism" was the "only reality". And now we know, (from "science") that is a "superstition".

"Atheist" celebrities like to mocking say, "theism" lives "in the gaps" where "science" hasn't "figured it out".  But that is a very poor understanding of the subject of "God".  "God" still "makes it rain" despite the "science of meteorology".

There is "no gap required". So the claim is an expression of one's ignorance about theology, more than anything.  But, on the other hand, it is actually "Atheism" that needs some "gaps".  The"materialistic" part  of the universe that "Atheism" not only "depends on", but was actually premised on, is growing smaller and smaller and smaller by the day.  Currently, the "Atheist's" "real estate" only accounts for 5% of the known universe. (Not much left of it, actually)  Especially after it actually laid claim, to 100% of it, previously in history.

Whose "really" the one, living on "borrowed time" ?  The view of the universe, looks pretty good from here.


Romans 1:19, 20 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead
The Bible describes "God" in numerous different "categories" just like you would any person that you might know. You could describe them "psychologically" in terms of what their "personality" is like. You could describe them in terms of their "routines". Or what kind of "work" they do. Or what they "look" like. Or perhaps their weight and height. Describing a person in 1 category however, does not mean, they do not have traits and characteristics in other categories as well.  In other words, just because you describe someone in terms of their "height and weight", doesn't mean they have no personality and no routine and no work.

When describing someone with whom you are "close", you tend to describe them in terms of their "emotive" characteristics. But that doesn't mean they have no "physical" traits.  And when you describe the very same person, to say, a "police officer" who might be looking for them, because they are missing, you would describe them, in terms of their "physical traits" such as "height, weight and hair color" because those "physical traits" are the only ones, the police officer (who is a stranger, and "looking" for them) can use, to recognize them by.

The Jewish prophets in the Bible, did not know the "god" of "Latin Theology" that only exists within your "head". Nor did they ever have anything to say about that "god", at least in a positive way. (Rev.9:11, 16:13)  That "god" was called a "delusion" (2 Thss 2:11) by the Apostle Paul, which is, oddly enough, precisely the "very same word" used of it, by the world renown "Atheist" activist, "Richard Dawkins".

Because "God" (in the Bible), really does physically exist, the Bible gives a "physical description" of what it is talking about. So that it can be "recognized", by complete "strangers".  These "physical descriptions" however, are not the end of who or what "God" is.  They are just the "beginning". But these descriptions are provided to identify who (and what) "God" is, so that you would know what was being talked about, even if you were a complete stranger.   The Bible really does give "physical attributes" of God's "existence".  They are "invisible", but despite that fact, they are "invisible", they are still both "physical" and "visible" as they are "seen" by what they do.

And there is even a "mathematical proof" of his existence, that has been worked out by Nobel laureates in physics.  They didn't start out to do that, but that is what they did. And if you know what you are looking at, it doesn't need any explanation as to what and how that is the case. (You already know the story)

If you do not "already" know the story, See: The Truth About Atheism (14) Physics, to hear the rest of what you do not know.  "Science" demonstrates the existence of God in the universe, in as much as "science" can do it.  When you hear otherwise, you are hearing a misrepresentation of "science" coming from "theology" and "philosophy" , and intentionally crafted for "propaganda".

Within the "Biblical description of God", are what is known today as the "fundamental forces of the universe".  They are called the "invisible things of him, that are clearly seen" (Rom.1:20).  There is no doubt they "exist".  There is no "debate" they "exist".  And Richard Dawkins even said in his own words, "if by "God" one means the physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God". But he added; "It would not be "emotionally satisfying" to pray to "gravity". (Evidencing the fact, he doesn't know much about the concept of God)  God is also "Love". (But no one just "prays to Love") 

...clearly there is such a God.




Since the Biblical definition of God, "does exist", then "God" exists (by Definition)


And the following 4 Questions become "logical" to ask...         [ D.E.K.S. ]


QUESTION #1 - Defined  = [ "God" (as a knowledge discipline) is "Defined" by "primary source documentation" ]


(1) If God is defined as that which exists, how can it be claimed God does not exist? (Atheism then becomes invalid by any definition)



QUESTION #2 - Existent  = [ That definition described the "fundamental forces of the universe", which DO "Exist" ]


(2) Since "God" is "defined" as that which exists, how is believing in that which exists, "imaginary", "delusional", "irrational" or "stupid"?



QUESTION #3 - Knowable = [ Since that is the "definition of God", and it DOES "Exist", how is it "not known" to exist? ]


(3) Since God IS defined as that which exists (by the Biblical definition Genesis 1:1, Romans 1:20, Acts 17:24,25,28), how can it be claimed it is "not known", or "not knowable" if God exists?    (Other than through appeals to Solipsism and Nihilistic Delusion which then deny reality itself?)


QUESTION #4 - Sane (and not Superstitious) = [ since the definition of God "exists", how is it "sane" to deny it's "existence" ]


(4) Is it "sane" (of sound mind) to deny the existence of reality, in order to maintain the "non-existence of God"? Is that not the very definition of a "medieval superstition"?


The "Atheist" might not "like" God, but it is a "false statement" to say "God" (as defined by the primary source documentation) "does not exist" or is not "known" "to exist". The question of "existence" is "beyond logic". It is one of "personal aesthetics" only. (Meaning "I personally prefer to "believe" God does not "exist"") no matter what the "definitions" and the "proofs" are. (Which is the dictionary definition of the word, "superstition")