text: I did not say your beliefs are silly, only that your analogy logically would require you to admit that for the analogy to work. Your other options are to abandon the analogy or show me where my logic fails.
  
  Citing empiracle evidence suggests you are attempting to use scientific method to determine factually whether God exists or not. Science is good at examining the physical universe, but useless at examining that which is conceptually outside the physical universe. How is that logical?
  
  On the other hand, over 500 people witnessed Jesus alive during the 40 days after he was killed, a few wrote about it, at least one of whom was an eye witness to all of those events, the writings were widely circulated and spoken of contemporaneously so those who were written about could have refuted it, but none did. We accept eyewitness testimony all the time to determine the truth of things we ourselves have not seen (including in science), and billions have agreed and believed. How is that silly?