This book is written for the understanding of both christians or atheists that are questioning their beliefs or even for both to learn from the side of christianity. It has been debated for centuries by atheists since the beginning of the societal infidelity rise in the 5th-6th century BCE in greece and in india but the term "atheist" has been popularized in the 1600s but nearly everyone believed in God in the old times but In recent times, many skeptists started to appear all around. The most prominent religion to this day is "christianity" and while some christians question if it is a religion or not, It's populary believed as a religion. Now let's get into the great refute to all atheistic claims about the christian God and how illogical it is for a deity to not exist in reality.

1.If God is real, why is there evil in the world? || So this is the most prominent argumentation for God because it is stated that he is a righteous and good God. There is one answer to this question that atheists do not like and it is because of God's glory. It is important to know that God is not selfish, the christian God is a trinitarian God and the Holy trinity consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirt. The Father loves His Son and The Son loves the Father and they made the world for each other and ultimately, God's glory. It states this in Colossians 1:16“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” So, unlike the Islamic God, the christian God is not a selfish God who only wants to please himself.

2.If An All Loving God is real, why does suffering exist? This is a very similar question to the first and it also receives a similar answer. Firstly, I must state that God isn't all loving because in Psalms 11:5 it states "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence" So God is not all loving but he hates the wicked but to answer the question as to how God is good or not, God's glory and his ultimate plan but popular atheists question his morality as to why he also allows the animals to suffer but just questioning his morality presupposes God's existence even more because in a world view of atheism, nothing matters but the presupposition that suffering is bad hurts the atheistic view. Animal suffering is a result to how corrupted this world is and was caused by humanity but allowed by God for the better good of his eternal plan and glory. Isaiah 45:9 says "What shall the clay say the potter. "what makes thou." stating that it is foolish for the creation to question the creator, although God is good and perfect, even so, he is able to do whatsoever he wants with his creation but as perfect as he is, he gives us a gift of salvation if we believe in his Son that is blessed forever and ever amen. As for human suffering Ephesians 2:3 states that we all have sinned and Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, meaning that we all are worthy of death and as for us christians who are suffering, Romans 8:28 states that God works things out for the better and that we all need to be tried through the fire of adversity for our learning just as 1 Peter 1:7 states.

3.Divine Hiddenness, Why doesn't he show himself? This is a popular question but probably the easiest to answer, even without scripture but I will show both. 1. God made us a book, It's called "The Bible." 2. He is revealed in our hearts as romans 1:18-21 states “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”“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; so that they are without excuse:”“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” So yes, technically, atheism is pretty much denial and every atheist and even other religions are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Everybody believes in the biblical God inherently and every single Ex-atheist always states that they knew God deep down in their heart but was refusing to believe. It isn't an intellectual or evidence problem, It's just a heart problem but God can fix your heart. Also, God reveals himself through his believers as well, I have asked atheists "Honestly, If every person on earth followed christianity to its fullest, will the world be a better place." But in regardless if they say no, the fundamental objective laws of this universe is all of the 10 commandments and they cannot deny that.

4.Logical Contradictions in God's nature. How is God omnipotent if He cannot sin? This question could go with anything infinite , how the concept "nothing" exists if existence exists. Trippy question, It's not the fact that God isn't powerful enough to sin, It's the fact that He will not. Just as existence will never stop existing or non existent things will start to exist, A good God cannot turn bad because that's the nature of things, If God were to sin then He would be just like us and that'll redefine reality making Him not God. The thing is, there are laws to reality and God's omnipotency cannot stop being omnipotent just like an orange cannot stop being an orange or a cat cannot stop being a cat, God cannot stop being good because good is what He is. In a hypothetical standpoint, the presupposition that God would do anything immoral would redefine his nature, not him making who he is. For example, changing the past, If I hate nazi's and killed one and I, being in the future still stand on that, you would have to change the hate in my heart for me to go back in time and not kill that nazi but that would contradict reality.

5.How is God omnipotent if he gave us free will? The concept of free will is extremely unbiblical and contradictive and is a popular concept that was created in the early 1900s and also popularized in the 2000s by unintelligent biblically illiterate tiktokers on the internet. God never gave man free will but he has given us a choice. Conceptually, if free will was to exist, who's "free will" would be stronger? There cannot be multiple wills, the ultimate will is God's will. The most he gave us is a conscious and the ability to think but our every decision is already predetermined according to God's will. If it is God's will for us all to die then it would just be like that. But of course, this depends on how you define 'free will" If it is the belief that humans have their own wills then that would be contradictive because humans desires contradict God's will and God wouldn't be omnipotent or omniscient because we could will for God to not know and infact, we would be God. But if the free will means "motive." then there are only two wills, God's will and the Devil/Flesh's will. Every human is intrinsically born with the Devil's desire or if you want to say "will". We all have lusts and desires but if we are reborn again in the name of Jesus Christ, then we have God's will. So it just depends on how you define will, I personally hate the doctrine of free will because Ephesians 1:4-5 states that God pre-destined his children to be adopted by Jesus Christ through the pleasure of his will.

6.Evolution VS Biblical Creation. How is the bible true if science contradicts it? So the Evolution theory was created by Charles Darwin in 1858 where he studied multi-celluar organisms and came up with the conclusion that we all originate from fish and monkeys. I have debated atheists, including chatGPT on this and none of them were able to come up with a rational and empirical hypothesis on how an donkey's ancestor is a fish, let alone a human. The fact that Evolution is still a theory nearly 2 centuries later makes me believe it to be even more irrational. There is no empirical evidence that an animal can morph into another animal in a long period of time because I don't believe anybody have made a time machine yet. The closest thing was the galapago birds whose beaks have change in slight times but there's an explanation for that. The different trees that they had to peck reshaped their beaks and evolutionists also like to go on about dog breeds but does the dog change into a cat? And my ultimate question for the evolution theory is, if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Some atheists said that they came from different common ancestors however, none of them could answer this: Alright, but then why are sarcopterygians (lobe finned fishes) still existent? So, do some just have a skill issue? Genetic disorder? If evolution is real, what are the chances of that we can create a new sort of creature? Until you contact the ancestor of your ancestor and extra-extra ancestor your ancestor and see that he recognizes that you could possibly be one of his descendants, the unproven evolution theory is false. As for the christian evolutionists, read your bible. The closest thing we came from evolving from, is the ground. Also, the idea of intercourse Itself debunks evolution because how long until a self reproductive organism evolves into a organism that requires another organism to bring forth more?

7.Miracles violates established natural laws. Do they? If miracles didn't violate your ideology of "established natural laws" then they wouldn't be miracles. Miracles are events that are exclusively divinely intervented and there are indeed clips on social media and videos and testimonies of this happening. The one personally writing this has went through miracles before. If you have personally never seen any miracles, It's because of unbelief and the funny thing is, is that the bible states this as well. Luke 16 31 “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Also, most atheists like to use the argument that most "miracles" are anecdotal, poorly documented or naturalistically explained, However, think of it from a christian perspective. Jesus thanked God in Matthew 11 25 that he have hidden things from the wise and prudent so that they wouldn't believe in the physical and empirical evidence of miracles. So from that perspective, that's why there is poor documentations and you may believe that it is anecdotal.

8.Necessary Historical Evidence Of Jesus's infallability. So this right here is often questioned but even the most professed of atheistic historians could agree that Jesus was quite wise and prudent man but they only question his divinity. Jesus claimed that he was gonna tear the temple down, although he was speaking in metaphoric intent, there are non-biblical documents of the temple falling down in 70AD by first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was an eyewitness to the events. So there obviously is a unbiased perspective apart from the bible so If Jesus predicted the fall of temple, how fallible is his claims in the bible with the ones who knew him personally? Also, as written in corinthians, there were 500 eyewitnesses at once of his resurrection, although some people fell away in disbelief but a lot still believed and that is why the doctrine is even more believed today.

9.Moral Critques. 1.Commands of genocide 2. Mistreatment of Women. 3. Eternal Hell.. "Commandings of Genocide" refers to Deuteronomy 7 and 20 instruct the Israelites to "do not let anything that breathes remain alive" from the cities of the peoples in the promised land, including the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. I'd prefer to ask the opposing atheist to define "genocide" because the definition of genocide is to kill someone or in this case, people in reason of there geneology. But in context, God commands them to destroy those nations because they were absolutely horrid. If you read documents of them, you wouldn't question God at all here. Raping children, burning children etc. Although, after that, they have been mentioned else where in the bible, as well as the amaleks in other spots where people claim "God commanded genocide" And again, everybody in general is intrinsically evil and God can do whatever he wants to any of us. secondly, "Women Hate." This right here is arguably the most fallacious claim on the bible, many feminists believe that the bible causes men to become more and more misogyonistic men to uprise into society but that is completely opposite to what the bible teaches. Some like to cherry pick when the bible pretty much tells you that a women is supposed to be subjective to their husbands but they forget that it says the same thing. Men do not benefit biblically more than women in terms of rules but the biblical hiearchy is pre-dominant to a more patriarchal lead as stated in 1 corinthians "The head of every women is the man." If the bible was misogynistic, It would say something along the lines of "Wives, be subject to all men." Also, some debators like to use the argument that Dinah was raped in Genesis 34, but God never commanded it to occur, infact, Dinah's brothers manipulated the evil people to become their allies which required them to be circumsized which is very painful if you're not a infant and then they slaughtered them and God did not punish them. Finally, the argumentation that people are going to be burned for all eternity is incredibly fallacious. The doctrine of an eternal hell was popularized by St. Augustine in the 5th century, too the which he had a horrible misunderstanding in greek and unfortunately mislead a lot of people into believing that sinners will burn forever in hell. Roman 6:23 states that the wages of sin is death, not eternal suffering. It has never stated that people will burn forever, neither implied. Whenever it says "Eternal Punishment" that could be ambiguous, however, It means that their deaths are irreversible. Hence, Eternal Damnation. Annihilationism is true doctine of hell, not "Eternal Hell."

10.The Bible contains contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and morally problematic teachings. Nothing that was taught and commanded in the bible is "immoral." They often use "slavery" as an example. Slavery is not inherently evil, community service is pretty much slavery. The reason why slavery is so down looked upon is because of the Influential Immoral black slavery in america. But in biblical times, slavery was whenever someone was indebt or to get paid. And the bible commands masters to treat their slaves kindly and of course if there slaves disobey, they can chasten them. Think of it as, a parent and child relationship. Paul says in Ephesians that a slave should fear his Master with trembling but this of course is a modern translation but it is implied that it pretty much mean respect your master as if they were a parent. Haven't you feared your parents whenever you'd get in trouble, maybe not in this generation. Also, in Philemon, Paul writes to Philemon, a slave master to receive his runaway slave and treat him like a brother. So yes, there have been some mistreatments of slaves in history, but it is immoral in the bible. Soon, I might make a book going over all of the contradictions but for now, let's go to the most prestigious claim. The Luke Mary Magdalene contradiction, did she see Jesus or did she not? The "Contradiction" takes place in Luke to which I will say this, Luke never directly met Jesus during his ministry. His gospel is based on the accumulative collective eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ during his ministries. Think of Luke as a officer who gets the different views of the victims/suspects. If you take the canonical gospels into consideration you would see clearly that  Mark 16 states Jesus saw Mary Magadalene first, which we see in Matthew 28. Luke 24 also confirms the first time the women went to the tomb is when they encountered the angels, which will be before going to Peter (which Peter then finds the linen in both Luke 24 and John 20. So there were multiple visits to the tomb. Also, none of the men were there, they relied on the stories of the women, whether or not if one women said "I saw one angel." and the other said "I saw two." It wouldn't matter because of the fact that maybe one of the women didn't recognize the other person as a angel. Also, to me, It makes me believe even more because if there weren't inconsistencies, then It would all seemed too devised and conspired that the entire witness has no inconsistencies whatsoever. Although, the whole bible being written by 40 authors, there aren't any MAJOR inconsistencies, as stated by the most atheistic historians who critque the bible. Also, some people speak on the fact that there isn't any evidence of the flood, not only I say unto them: "If all of this is true, consider not the rest of the evidence?" I also say to them "Wouldn't the evidence be washed away, literally?" So the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and moral contradictions is a rather subjective argument.

11.There are thousands of gods, why Jesus Christ? For the other side of this, Jesus is the most proven figure in existence and definitely moreso than any other man who claims to be God or created a god. Of course there are eyewitnesses to Jesus's miracles and some scientists tried to debunk this, however even AI says that you cannot truly debunk it. Jesus also never contradicted his own speech but stayed in the truth but the second most prominent religion, Islam contradicts itself heavily, It says that the christians must follow their religion but it also says that all must serve allah, not only that, but in Islam, the torah and bible is not only canonic, but also recommended, to which the bible tells you to not follow other religions. Judaism is pretty much the old testament but they reject the new testament to which, Jesus is obviously mentioned multiple times in the old testament. And Buddism is a mutli-religious religion, meaning you can be christian and a buddhist. Also, buddha was very immoral and all of the other gods are merely man created and Jesus is the truth, the way and of the life so, this claim is futile.

12.The Implausiblity of an atheistic world. Now this is my take, as christians it is important to know that atheists already know God is real, again, romans 1. So regardless or not if you give them proof or evidence or they read this book, It will not persuade them If God doesn't want them to be changed. If you read this book as an atheist and you have decided to convert, congratulations because that will not be likely for everyone else to. And as Christians, it is important to know that you MUST use the gospel and the bible to persuade atheists, not this book. This book was written solely with the intent to teach you how to refute all of their claims that they provide because I am an apologist and I have accumulated all of my sources and came up with ways to refute their claims but again, if It isn't God's will for them to convert, then that is that. That's not your fault or responsibility. Your responsiblity is to give them the gospel and move on but do it in a loving way of course. Now let's get into "How It's implausible For An Atheistic World View To Exist." Without a God, the universe is very beautifully orchestrated in a way that require an intellgent mind. If God was not to exist, that would require a chance universe, but what are the chances that this universe could randomly stop existing? Some atheists try to debunk God with the "Speed of Light methodology" but It's truely false because even albert einstein said that first form cannot be measured, so it can mean anything you want, even instantaneously, meaning that looking at the universe with a telescope and seeing a "big bang' is implausible to that conclusion. A chance universe would require us to all have a chemical reacting mind but in the world of atheism and that morality is subjective. But If morality if subjective, then why do the Ex-atheists admit that being homosexual felt wrong but was socially constructed to make them feel accepted? Why is it that we all know rape is inherently wrong but the otter does not? If morality is subjective and morality is objective, then why would we all care about death or rape, murder, stealing etc? It just wouldn't matter because we aren't objective supposed to be here. There isn't any meaning to life so dying wouldn't matter and we wouldn't care. If morality was socially constructed, then when did we all decide to inherently believe that stealing was wrong? Back in the "ooga booga" days did we just all come together and devised morality? In this world view, there wouldn't be oppositions, enemies, and friends wouldn't exist because in this hypothesis, we have the same mind as worms. So morality is definitely NOT a social construct or neither is it subjective because in that world, you could justify brute cruel murder."In my morality, I can murder someone if they breathed 3 inches closely to me." There wouldn't be anything wrong with that in a subjective world. In a world of subjectivity and chance, you are God. You see how loveless that world view is? Everybody is selfish but no, God gave us all the ability to love and that's how an atheist can love another person because created us all in his image. He wrote the moral law on our hearts and that's why coming out of the womb, we know that sinning is bad. Would a wild cannibal be evil if he ate you during your morning hike through the woods? No, he's just trying to eat, or at least in an atheistic world view, he is. Because everything is "survival of the fittest" and If somebody murdered, there would be nothing wrong with that. But in ultimate regard, if an atheist that reads this, It's all God's decision to trepanate this into the mind of a unbeliever. Remember, he has mercy on whom he has mercy on but this book was written for your understand and how I got my knowledge was through the bible and of course directly, The Holy Spirit. I encourage you to read the bible on your own so that you can also learn to refute atheists claims whenever encountered. With all of that being written, this is the beginning of the ministry of Kenesis, Amen.