God, From, Essence, is a metaphysical construct, 'meta' = 'beyond' physics, beyond evidence.

Believing that there is an underlying and guiding Essentialist metaphysics to conditioned experience (physics) is to believe in something for which there is no evidence. There is no thing 'Green', we can examine and experience to understand the 'greenness' of the apple (at the end of our Hubble Volume btw, the green apple appears red, infrared and beyond due to Doppler shift), but nowhere will the thing 'Green' hit us.

Believing that metaphysics to conditioned experience is concretely non-existent (not the empty middle of neither exists nor does not exist, but an actual negation of the existence of God, as strong Atheism tends to do), is to acknowledge the invalidity of Form, Essence. But the world runs regularly - red appears red, and the colour changes frame dependently, in a mathematically predictable way. There world is completely regular, in that none of its aspects is a-mathematical (it can always be described), with an Existence of God or a non-Existence of God, you are faced with an irregular existence. 

Change is not possible with the former because 'things' are permanently fixed. Change is not possible with the latter, because 'things' do not exist Essentially, therefore how can they exist (and change) relationally?

The Atheist cannot imagine God because the construct is not relational, not causal.

> Would you, or would you not say, that absolute knowledge, if there is
> such a thing, must be a far more exact knowledge than our knowledge;
> and the same of beauty and of the rest? 
> 
> Yes.  
> 
> And if there be such a thing as participation in absolute
> knowledge, no one is more likely than God to have this most exact
> knowledge? 
> 
> Certainly.  
> 
> But then, will God, having absolute knowledge, have a
> knowledge of human things? 
> 
> Why not?  
> 
> Because, Socrates, said Parmenides, we have admitted that
> the ideas are not valid in relation to human things; nor human things
> in relation to them; the relations of either are limited to their
> respective spheres. 
> 
> Yes, that has been admitted.  
> 
> And if God has this perfect authority,
> and perfect knowledge, his authority cannot rule us, nor his knowledge
> know us, or any human thing; just as our authority does not extend to
> the gods, nor our knowledge know anything which is divine, so by
> parity of reason they, being gods, are not our masters, neither do
> they know the things of men. [Plato's Parmenides][1]

The greatest difficulty (beyond accepting that Copernican, Galillean, special, general relativity and [relational quantum  mechanics][2] slowly lead the way to the death of metaphysics and the anatta of [Nagarjuna][3]), is to acknowledge that the circle cannot be squared for validating any concept that is, from the get go, axiomatically declared to be independent of observation/measurement. 

Any and all metaphysics by definition places itself beyond the root of the scientific method, that is observation/measurement. Any statement with regards to metaphysical speculation, other than that it is beyond observation and therefore beyond experiment, is a hypothesis without any suitable experiment. All one can say is that Metaphysics is empty of verifiable/falsifiable phenomena/things/concepts - empty of any thing. Having no access to evidence and experiment, engaging in speculation one way or the other, is engaging in a-scientific speculation.


  [1]: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html
  [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609002.pdf
  [3]: https://ia800400.us.archive.org/4/items/NagarjunaTheFundamentalWisdomOfTheMiddleWay/Nagarjuna%20-%20The%20Fundamental%20Wisdom%20Of%20The%20Middle%20Way.pdf