I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.
The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.
Precisely! And that's the whole point of the OP, but, of course, you follow that as you know as well as I that to define God is to not only outline his fundamental attributes, but to concede what the immediate empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. These things are readily self-evident to anyone who seriously regards the problem of existence per the first principles of ontology. There's nothing mysterious about these things. The idea of God is a universally objective apprehension. But of the hundreds of atheists I've encountered, maybe two have seriously regarded the problem of existence and remain unconvinced that there is an actual substance behind the idea. Fair enough. But the others are just spouting slogans. As for those who claim to have seriously regarded the problem and yet still claim there is no evidence for God's existence, they're lying.
Of course, the other issue in the OP goes to natural and constitutional law. That too is a matter of first principles:
Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state