No, it's not a 'false dichotomy'.
A false dichotomy presents an either/or scenario when multiple options are available. You demand we present evidence, and if we don't, we
must admit that God does this that don't leave evidence. The fact remains that we can do something else entirely:
- simply state that God doesn't exist,
- state that he exists but doesn't do anything,
- state that he exists, does things, but didn't walk with Enoch,
- state that he exists, does things, walked with Enoch, but didn't leave any evidence, or
- state that he exists, does things, walked with Enoch, leaves evidence,
even though we may not actually
have the evidence.
You presented
one of those options as the
only alternative to not presenting evidence - yet many more exist. Therefore, it's a false dichotomy. Therefore, it's fallacious.
God 'not doing anything at all' is never an option to a theist.
Sure it is. He doesn't do
everything. There are some things he doesn't do (like heal amputees, stop tsunamis, etc). It's entirely possible that God simply never walked with Enoch. Since that scenario would leave no evidence for reasons
other than what you imply, why, then, do you think we
must admit that God can
do things that don't leave evidence? We can easily state that all his actions leave evidence - and, in this one case, he simply didn't act.
Again, false dichotomy.
QV the parenthetical here please:
6
The parenthetical is irrelevant.
