God as a non-empirical being

[Hatshepsut]

"God is not an empirical being, so asking for empirical evidence is a simple category error."

If not empirical and thus accessible to the senses,* then this being is confined to the realm of concepts only. Such a being would be disappointing to Christians, who generally assume God is all over his creation like flies on...you know. I'm not even aware of any theistic systems which posit a deity totally disconnected from the rest of the universe, although I don't know eastern religion too well.

Technically this non-empirical arguer is probably unbeatable. After all, you can conceive of almost anything you want to. It's possible that if a list of properties has been postulated for this being, that set could turn out internally inconsistent. But while unbeatable, the arguer hasn't done much. The only people who work fruitfully but strictly in the realm of concept are logicians and mathematicians. However, the instant this non-empirical being does something that affects the observable universe in any way, then she is no longer a non-empirical being, for an empirical claim has been made about her.  

That would include any communication with the being by thought, of course.  

Two good general online resources are Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both much better than I am.

SEP:  http://plato.stanford.edu/
IEP:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/

*The word "senses" is extended to mean some observable effect on the real world, so as to include X-rays and so on.