See the Rules of Jan's God Game. And, indeed, you are correct that it is not an argument. That's because the Rules of your game rely on logical contradictions and on silly power games in which you will take your bat and ball and refuse to play unless each player agrees to abide by your Rules in advance. Correct. "God Is" is a claim that God exists. Some believe one thing; others believe something else. Yes, yes. Compare Bigfoot, once again. Could Bigfoot just be, irrespective of belief? Well, yes, of course. But is there any good reason why somebody should believe in Bigfoot, in the absence of evidence for Bigfoot's existence? I can't see one. So what makes God different? God is not an object like Bigfoot? Well, how about isoceles triangles, then, or something else that is intangible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to believe in isoceles triangles, in some kind of abstract way. But that kind of belief seems to me to be of a different flavour than belief in God. I think that if we head down this track we'll be tracking back towards discussing the difference between believing in a concept and believing that a thing is real. When one mathematician talks to another, they probably don't usually have to start with a discussion about whether isoceles triangles exist. Both of them already accept that; they're on common ground. And so it is with theists when they discuss their gods, at least at the most abstract level. (And, let's face it, you portray your own God here in the most non-specific and abstract way possible, which I see as a strategy for making your God as small a target as possible.) But you want to discuss God with atheists. And there, your Rule no. 1 is firmly in dispute. You say "Atheists! Listen up! If you're going to talk to me about God, you have to come onto my home-ground playing field and play the game by my rules. Those are the only conditions under which I'll consider playing the God game." In reply, the atheists say that the rules of your game are internally inconsistent, illogical and don't make much sense when discussing a real-world conundrum. But you refuse to listen to any of that. It's your game played your way, or else you take your bat and ball and go home. You insist. Correct. You can only play Jan's God Game if you accept Rule 1: God Is, no matter what. At the start of play, you get to choose your token. You can play on the theist team, or you can play the atheist caricature role in which you must pretend to deny that God Is, all the while knowing that you already signed up to Rule 1 before you started. Jan's God Game is not a fair game. It's a biased game in which the playing field is sloped in only one direction and where the rules are structured so one team always wins. How enlightening. Let me paraphrase. The field in which we find ourselves in Jan's God Game allows that God Is, and we can have a friend called God. So, if somebody tells us they have a friend called God, we must accept it whether it is true or not. Enlightening, once again. Sarkus, if he agrees to play Jan's God Game, has already signed up to Rule 1. Acceptance that "God Is" has already taken place. Sarkus has chosen to play for the atheist team in this game, and so must now play out the role despite the slanted field of play. Truly "there is no God for Sarkus", because Sarkus is not playing on the winning team. He knows that, and Jan knows that, but Sarkus chose to play so here we are, playing Jan's game in which Sarkus has lost before the game begins. But there is a different game we could play - a more honest game. Rule 1 says "God Is". That's the Way Things Are. But playing on the atheist teams means you pretend you haven't already signed up to obey Rule 1. The atheist role in Jan's God Game is to pretend that things like evidence are important. Pretend that the field of play is flat, and ignore that the field slopes down towards the theist goal everywhere. Direct revelation would be like stopping in the middle of the game and suddenly changing teams, to play for the theists. Not for any reason to do with "evidence", but just an arbitrary decision to stop playing on the side that is predestined to lose. Of course, any atheist with integrity who goes in to play Jan's rigged God Game with eyes open will at least have the decency not to take the easy way out mid way through the game. It's interesting to speculate how Jan would fare if he ever agreed to play on a level playing field. I don't think we'll ever find out.