Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

No, it would be impossible to speak of God if you don't have an open door to the reality of God since you don't accept God as a word or subject of reality.

We could have an argument about defining principals around subject/object determinism and personal viewpoints predetermined as you prescribe to, in accord with genetic disposition.


Your statement If you want to have a discussion about God then you would have to accept words as something other than absolute in meaning and or definition.

I don't agree. Having an authority dictate what is useful to understanding within any experience is ridiculous. Not only do you want to indicate free will as fantasy, but you want to establish an authority outside of choice to dictate what a person should accept regardless of experience.
Pretty much what the Church wanted to accomplish with the religions of belief in God.
You want to establish the church of science.



If a usable definition is not universally accepted as a reality, discussions become relevant to beliefs and not experience OR knowledge.

You haven't been able to grasp my tact since you argue it doesn't apply, so why pretend to understand what you deny?



Your authoritative definition does not apply to my experience or knowledge regarding anything supernatural or within the realm of Tooth fairies. So now what?

If that were so you wouldn't be hiding from the opposition you described as anti-science. You would simply acknowledge the fact that within the one universe you have made yourself available to threats made by those who are genetically inclined to speak to their own version of the one universe in which they see you as a threat. In other words you knew the job was dangerous when you took it and by your own choice exposed your family to this threat.