Besides “God”, there are many other words used in human interactions that some claim must be defined first. Words like “freedom” or “justice” or “virtue”.
Let’s go to the dictionary:
Define: “to state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.”
The idea being that unless everyone is in agreement regarding what it is that they are talking about, there will be communication breakdowns.
The difficulty however is that while words of this sort are in fact defined in the dictionary…given a meaning applicable to all of us…when they are actually used out in particular worlds revolving around particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts, communication breaks down anyway.
Why? Because there is a critical distinction between, say, establishing whether one is free to worship one or another God, and establishing whether one ought to be free to worship Him.
Just as there is a crucial distinction between establishing that in fact John worships the Christian God as a Catholic, and establishing that, in fact, this God does exist.
All of these words can be “looked up” in the dictionary. They can all be defined.
But what needs to be acknowledged is that having “dictionary definitions” is sometimes not enough when making a substantive transition from a “world of words” to a world the words are actually used in.
Sometimes the dictionary is sufficient, sometimes it is not.
Here though there are folks who seem to insist that the argument for God’s existence is merely a matter of defining God correctly. In other words as they do. As an “intellectual contraption” that revolves entirely around the “internal logic” derived precisely from the definition and the meaning that they give to the words in the argument. God is then “analyzed” into existence.
Thus, if you define Him correctly, any and all empirical evidence must and/or eventually will be in sync with the definition.
Just ask them.