Rev, almost every question you ask is nonsense, b/c of the implicit assumptions. But first things first.

" is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists..."

This is a stupid argument. It takes the form "(Probably Y since X)" or "(X probably implies Y) and X." (it's a little more complicated than that, but it's not worth going into more detail, the argument is so utterly stupid) Using his pseudologic, it is not probably impossible to refute the existence of god, it IS impossible to refute the existence of god, b/c it's given that God is proved.

I know what your definition of God is. It means whatever you elect to have it mean at the moment. God is all things. God is everything. God is the spiritual. God is all things that exist; some things clearly exist; therefore god exists. I get your argument. It's as uncomplicated as it is unenlightening. But that definition of God is nonsense. It's not wrong. It's not right. It's just nonsense. There is a lot of baggage associated with the word God. Why use the word God to describe "all things" unless you are attempting to deceive. You are deceiving yourself and you are attempting to deceive others. Your every post on the subject conveys this. First god is everything. Then god is only the good stuff. It's a definition of terms that is intended to conflate and confuse what is being said. No surprise there, as you use the word "science" also in a way that attempt to deceive.

I didn't say that JJ's group were spiritual. But they weren't atheists either.

"Do not atheists think of matter as the highest good possible?"
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this forum.

Atheists have different views about what might be the highest possible good. Some of us possibly don't even believe in the highest possible good. I'm agnostic on the subject. But I'm pretty the set of atheists who think that "matter" is the greatest possible good is empty.

Atheism is not a system of ethics, nor does it subsume a system of ethics. The ways that atheists develop their ethics is either through adopting some additional philosophy (humanism, randian objectivism, what have you) or by instantiating a system of personal ethics (which may be transmitted by tradition).

I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)