Ontology and Proven Atheistic Idiocy

The entire universe (or even beyond it, if possible) has, in fact, never needed to exist and this comprehends the fullness of its being qua being; this statement is, moreover, fully consistent with intellectually reasoning from first principles, unlike the deformed cogitation of atheists who only partially attempt to supposedly reason; this absurdly reified ratiocination, on their part, is done, thus, from merely secondary or lesser principles of cognition. 

In considering the beingness of being as to the holistic reality of itself in question, it can be understood that all being-oriented noetic efforts, directed toward the study of being in the discipline of philosophy, is rightly called ontology.

Materiality, again reasoning from first principles, has no inherent or functional ability to ever will itself into being; its entire beingness, all of existence itself as itself, is then fully contingent, not necessary to reality in any way, shape, or form.  The comprehensive totality of the physical reality of whatever or wherever it is that consists, by definition, of the universe possesses no necessity whatsoever, as to its being or existence as such. 

One comes rationally to the, thus, quite logical conclusion that ontology, upon proper examination, is always the best refutation of the odd protestations and argumentations variously proposed by any or all dedicated, convinced, professed, militant atheists.

As examined, existence, therefore, has no way of justifying itself to itself in that physical reality lacks a will or consciousness that, e.g., human beings, by definition, possess.  For instance, the gray matter of the physical human mind, the brain, cannot of itself demonstrate as just existent materiality that it has a soul; matter, e.g., cannot will itself, not even to explain itself to itself or its integral existence as such. 

What is being discussed here, however, as the proper issue to be critically noted?  One must recognize the standard trick, done by nominalists when considering such things, that they, thus, must necessarily smuggle in metaphysics from the back door after pushing it out through the front door, which is the very definition, in essence, of all of atheism.

The entire universe, as was noted, does not have to exist, meaning, of course, in its initial origins, in its being; by logical and reasonable extension, therefore, reality qua reality does not, in fact, have to exist; being qua beingness itself, as a consequence, does not need to be; all of reality, inclusive of the universe itself (or beyond), is all merely, purely, contingent being; there is no axiomatic or other supposed determining necessity to the being of beingness, the existence of all that exists; furthermore, any implied or assumed necessity is a fallacy, an error, in (deformed) reasoning accepted by atheists (and, by extension, those who have been properly called the cowardly atheists, meaning all the agnostics, of course).