No, that's just you being ridiculous. No, that's just you being silly. Here is what you wrote: Observe, please, there is nothing in that post about whether or not a god exists. Again, we remember that you are not to be taken seriously↗. Also remember, you have previously been caught falsifying a quote↗ in order to challenge someone. Inasmuch as you're making stuff up in order to challenge someone— —no, that's just your religious zeal. So, there was this question↑: If you get close to having a useful point, would you actually know it; and now we see the answer is no, you would not. Part of your error is that you are pursuing a question according to your own assertion of God, and toward that, we might recall Armstrong↑, that it is more important for a particular idea of God to work for the beholder than be logically or scientifically sound. That's easy enough to see when regarding the religious believer, but it also applies to atheistic critics who need particular iterations of God to criticize. If you had taken things more seriously, then perhaps you might have picked up on the important detail that one need not believe in an assertion of God in order to scrutinize and comprehend it, a point that has been in circulation, here, longer than you have been a member, and has been discussed during your time. In this context, "that mountain of religious books old and new, without which a god cannot be understood", is part of how we come to comprehend God. Your point of challenge, i.e., "something in a book that proves gods or a god exists", is your own invention according to your own need.