If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[pocaracas]

---

Many of the comments from my last post have rejected the idea that there are limitations to empirical analysis of the God or said it does not matter. Some of you have pointed out that if there was a God, should there not by empirical evidence? My response is twofold:

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

---

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

---

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence. This question begins to touch what in a very technical sense is knows as a metaphysical dream. This dream explains why a theist comes to a different conclusion than an atheist.

Please let me know what you think. I am very interested in understand how atheist evaluate their primary basis for determining reality, empiricism. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

---

Why should it not be?