Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Ignorant]

It's annoying when catholics do this.  Here's the process:
1)  Show that not all propositions require evidence.
2)  Put forward Sky Daddy, proclaiming "Not all propositions require evidence," absolving self of the BOP.

Informally, all propositions require a reason for their acceptance.  If it's a proposition about something claimed to exist, then evidence of its existence will be required.

Here's the thing, though, and I've said it before: if the God idea depends on deep philosophy and logical trickery for its support, then God has done nothing for me lately, and can be disregarded.  The proposition that God exists is irrelevant to me if that existence doesn't matter to my life.

I have no intention of either (1) or (2). I especially agree with the bold part.