I accept the definition(s) of God, just like I accept Newtonian mechanics as a very effective model of motion.
What is accepting or rejecting though? At what level of proof?
Direct observational evidence? If a table was in front of you, and you 'rejected' it, I'd call you mad, or in need of a rest!
But God is One, and the scientific method of observation/measurement requires a duality of observer and observed.
From a scientific point of view, God cannot be rejected or accepted - there simply can't be an experiment designed to reject any null hypothesis with respect to the Absolute.
For any level of proof below direct observation - inference, scripture, prophecy etc - anything is possible.
God is a materialistic objectification of All, the Absolute object. The path of the scientific method, from Coperincan relativity, to Gallilean, to special relativity, general relativity, and (Rovelli's) relational quantum mechanics, denies the observational validity of Absolutes, and shows that the fewer Absolutes, the more accurate the model!
Can you reject the above paragraph? Sure, conceptually, but if you examine the world directly, then - so long as you are honest - your conceptions will have to bend to what is in front of your eyes, which is sunyata for metaphysics - an experience which is only approximately described by Absolutes (like Newtonian mechanics is less explicative as compared to general relativity because of the assumption of Absolute Time and Absolute Space, but, importantly - it is still a decent model!) .