If you see a bird flying by your window now and there is nobody else around to see it then you know it flew by yet have no proof it did.
But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window.
Had you claimed you had just seen a dragon fly past your window... That would be a different matter entirely.
I'm not attempting to prove God exists. I am rebutting the suggestion in the OP that 1 and 7 are symmetrical statements
But it is you who ringed the supposed asymmetry of the ”inferred illogic’ of the two stand points. Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief
I have no proof of an empirical nature that God exists.
And so you have to Believe to be able to claim a 1. This is the same position of the 7s, each of these stances goes beyond the evidence available and so the proponents of each have to take a leap of faith to get there.
You have no proof of an empirical nature that empiricism is true
Sure. Because if I did I would have to have evidence that proved the non-existence of”supernatural’ senses. Again, like the search for god, you are asking to prove the non-existence of something.
Anyway I wasn’t claiming empiricism. I was asking for empirical data on your god. A subtle but important difference, as your reply above points out.
The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing.
Based on the available data then 1 and 7 are equivalent. Neither has hard evidence to support it, thus neither is a tenable position with out belief. They are equivalent.