Why is God not a subject for empirical debate? If the miracles described in Bible happened regularly I would consider that as strong empirical evidence for God. Given that no such miracles are forthcoming it reduces the likelihood that God exists.
Because there's no evidence either way. It's valid philosophically to consider the unknown or unprovable statement to be false, but the philosophers of science have pretty soundly rejected logical positivism[0]
Generally speaking the problem is that we can't treat empirical truths as some sort of strictly binary, completely true or completely false statements. Error is inherent to observation, so every scientific truth is a little bit false (or at least potentially so). The less rational part of me does consider that chocolate tapdancing unicorns are unlikely enough to be entirely discounted, but as a general philosophical rule it's more consistent to be a little more humble about what is known and can be known.
