What did the author intend by naming his book "The Existence of God"? Most reviewers who thought this was a well argued book did not see the fundamental flaw which renders every one of his arguments meaningless. Most, if not all, of the arguments are not new and they have all been refuted in substance elsewhere by philosphers. I shall thus only comment on the fundamental flaw (which has also not escape rational thinkers). It was plain that the object of the book was show by means of "philosophical" arguments that "God" exists; and, implicitly, that theists can take comfort that they can now use this book to deny that their belief in "God" was only an article of faith that cannot be proven. If this was meant to be a philosophical approach, and the arguments are philosophical arguments, the author, if he were a philosopher, would begain by defining the object that is being proved. Nowhere in this book has the author defined "God". Nowhere does he say that "By 'God' I meant that it is (a), (b), and (c), and I shall now proceed to prove (a), (b), and (c). Without defining "God", the author's entire inductive argument, for example, can just as well prove the existence of "Ogd". He did mention that God was "omniscient and perfectly good", but these are just descriptions of attributes and fall short of definition of what "God" is. Was God a person? It is not explained how attributes exist without a person. Was the person of God a puff of smoke or an invisible, formless spirit, and if so, what is an "invisible, formless spirit"? Was God male or female or both? Does he speak, and if so, in which language or every language on earth, or a language not known to man? Can God speak if he has no voicebox? If he has a voice box, would he have a stomach? If he has one, what does he do with it? These questions cannot be avoided if one wishes to prove the existence of a being. Definition comes before proof.