I never said science didn’t use definitions or classification. I said "By and large science doesn’t start with definitions…" [my emphasis added], which is true. Richard Owen didn’t define ‘dinosaur’ then go look for fossils, the fossils came first (although some things are postulated by scientific theoretical models and named/defined before evidence is found, eg black holes, but then evidence is sought based on the predictive model. They didn’t just claim that a black hole could be anything from an atom to a giant star and call it proved!) As you show, ‘god’ can be defined any way people want because there is nothing in reality (or any theoretical model) to compare to the definition, so there is zero, nada, zilch way to determine if a definition is accurate.
I’m not here trying to define god or gods or unicorns or big foot or whatever (as in arguing for or against a definition). I’m expressing my opinion that making up definitions of things there is no evidence for is pretty useless and is not, as you opined, that "…discussing what God is or isn't would be a critical part of both theism and atheism." It is critical to theists, not necessarily to atheists. I’m an a-unicornist, an a-fairyist, an a-sorcerist and an a-theist, among many other things I lack belief in because there is no evidence that such things exist. So I don’t spend time worrying about or discussing definitions of those things. I may respond to someone pushing a definition but it’s not critical to my disbelief. Definitions aren’t evidence.
I’ll grant that using those words presupposes some mental definition of what those things are supposed to be, but since all those things are alleged to have attributes that defy our scientific understanding of the universe *and* there has never been any positive evidence that such things/persons have existed or could exist, I don’t find that tweaking the definitions makes any difference in my disbelief. Redefining god as some ancient, powerful being on the other side of the universe that can never be investigated is just an attempt at a god of the gaps position. I’m not interested in spending time on that speculation, lack of evidence isn’t convincing.
Speculating about life or advanced civilizations on other planets isn’t the same thing. We know life exists, we know technological civilization exists. We have some understanding of how both came to exist on this planet and are actively pursuing more knowledge in those fields. We’re not specifically searching for a god on other planets or in the universe as a whole, nor are scientists speculating that we may find unicorns or gods ‘out there’.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. You seem to think you can define a god into existence, I think we shouldn’t be worrying about the definition of an entity until we have evidence that some such thing exists.
Peace.
= new reply since forum marked as read