God as a non-empirical being

[noctalla]

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

That would mean that god is not based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience.  I agree. No counterargument is required.
(it's not an argument, your friend was excusing himself from thought on the count of god)

[Faith No More]

Well, the theist traps himself if he claims God is non-empirical, because he can then no longer make any claims to his nature, nor can he appeal to any sort of reason to believe in him beyond pure faith.

You see, saying God is non-empirical is just a way to avoid presenting proof, because while they're telling you he's non-empirical out of one corner of their mouth, they're telling you that they he watches you masturbate out of the other.

[Mudhammam]

Typically, when people speak about God, they speak about a being who acts within the Universe. That is an empirical entity because its relation to the empirical world results in effects that we can define and measure by the empirical method. The difficulty is in distinguishing unknown causes with miraculous ones. There seems to be no way in principle to know if a miracle has occurred, which is why all justification for belief in miracles must be fallacious. It amounts to an appeal to ignorance. Now, there are objects in existence that we may not be able to subject to verification, such as the application of certain mathematical propositions, or the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials, or the experiences of an individual's particular thoughts or sensations, but we are also under no obligation to agree that they exist in whatever sense the claimant means without sufficient logical and empirical demonstration, both of which are required to establish high degrees of certainty. God as an abstract entity that sort of ties up the loose ends of our cognitive deficiencies may be necessary in thought, but this is not the same as being necessary in nature, either as in the one that is external to us and through which our brain perceives objects or as in one external to the external world, i.e. the universe. So, if we should not expect any empirical evidence for God's existence, we also cannot judge the soundness of related propositions, and logical validity itself proves nothing.

[Iroscato]

It basically means the subject has entered Terminal Stupidity, and nothing can be done to help him any longer except get out of his way and never engage him in the matter again, lest he drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

[Esquilax]

Simple answer to that claim: "Empirical evidence for my god is impossible," does not have, as a necessary conclusion, "therefore I do not have a burden of proof to provide empirical evidence." Asserting that god can never have evidence doesn't change the way the burden of proof works, it just means that the god claim fails to meet it.

[abaris]

A killer argument without base. As has been said, it's aimes to prevent further discussion.

[noctalla]

Typically, when people speak about God, they speak about a being who acts within the Universe. That is an empirical entity because its relation to the empirical world results in effects that we can define and measure by the empirical method. The difficulty is in distinguishing unknown causes with miraculous ones. There seems to be no way in principle to know if a miracle has occurred, which is why all justification for belief in miracles must be fallacious. It amounts to an appeal to ignorance. Now, there are objects in existence that we may not be able to subject to verification, such as the application of certain mathematical propositions, or the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials, or the experiences of an individual's particular thoughts or sensations, but we are also under no obligation to agree that they exist in whatever sense the claimant means without sufficient logical and empirical demonstration, both of which are required to establish high degrees of certainty. God as an abstract entity that sort of ties up the loose ends of our cognitive deficiencies may be necessary in thought, but this is not the same as being necessary in nature, either as in the one that is external to us and through which our brain perceives objects or as in one external to the external world, i.e. the universe. So, if we should not expect any empirical evidence for God's existence, we also cannot judge the soundness of related propositions, and logical validity itself proves nothing.

It seems to me, that a theist might respond that God is able to act within the Universe and that the effects of God's actions can be experienced or observed, but that the God itself remains outside the realm of experience or observation. But again, I can't think of any rational justification for making the claim. The sole reason seems to be to absolve the claimant from having any burden of proof.

[abaris]

But again, I can't think of any rational justification for making the claim. The sole reason seems to be to absolve the claimant from having any burden of proof.

What makes you think that theist arguments have to be rational? They believe in the supernatural, which in itself is irrational.

[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.