(April 17, 2015 at 6:38 pm)noctalla Wrote: I recently had a debate with a theist who made what I thought was a strange claim. In response to me saying I saw no evidence for a God, he asserted: "God is not an empirical being, so asking for empirical evidence is a simple category error." Although I pressed him to explain what he meant by this, all he did was to repeat the claim in various ways without elaborating or giving an argument to support it. Despite the fact that I had not said the evidence had to be empirical in nature, I felt the claim that God is not an empirical being needed to be justified. I said that empirical evidence requires observation and experience. If a God exists, I saw no reason we could not observe or experience said God, therefore this is not a category error. The theist eventually lost interest and stopped replying.
I was wondering:
1. Has anyone else had encountered this claim?
2. Is there an argument that supports this claim?
3. What are the counterarguments?
Okay, so this guy is familiar with "Show me the evidence," and is prepared with a philosophical-sounding answer. But word salad should never give way to the ideas the words represent. Whatever he wants to call God, he should provide a reason for you to believe the God idea represents a reality and not a fairy tale. If God is not seen or heard, then on what basis should someone who isn't already Christian be expected to change their world view to include the God idea?
