What do you mean when you say ‘God’?
Obviously, what I mean when I refer to ‘god’ is the universe, the entities and forces that constitute the natural world in its totality.
This is far from an anthropomorphic concept of god, but it is one that has a definite point of reference nonetheless.
I have been reading some essays by Canadian philosopher Kai Nielsen in the collection entitled Atheism & Philosophy. In one of these, entitled ‘In Defense of Atheism’, Nielsen argues that talking of god/God is incoherent if by ‘God’ one does not understand a fundamentally anthropomorphic being (or, presumably, some other experiential referent). The reason is that statements about God are
…taken by the faithful to be factual statements. Yet they are neither directly nor indirectly confirmable or infirmable even in principle and thus are in reality…devoid of factual content. They purport to be factual but fail to behave as factual statements. We have no idea of how to establish their truth or probable truth, or their falsity or probable falsity. We have no conception of what it would be like for them to be true (or probably true) or false (or probably false).
Nielsen does admit to employing a weak form of verificationism in determining what is and is not in principle a statement of fact, in that there must be at least some empirical/experiential grounding for the meaning of a factual statement - something to which that statement refers; but adds that attempts to describe or refer to God as, for example, “Being in itself” or “transcendent to the world” are “purportedly referring expressions, [but] no intelligible directions have been given as to how to identify the supposed referents of such referring expressions.”